Slashdot Mirror
Senator Diane Feinstein Trying to Kill Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Register, Senator Diane Feinstein is attempting to put language into the stimulus bill that would kill net neutrality. The amendment that her provision was attached to was withdrawn, but lobbyists tell Public Knowledge that Feinstein hopes to put it back into the bill during the closed-door conference committee that reconciles the House and Senate versions." Bad Senator! No Cookie!
I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
FTFA
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Stimulus bill hahahah whatever
Democrats NEVER hide unnecessary spending or unrelated projects in omnibus spending bills. They're for responsible government, remember?
Change! Transparency!
I for one welcomed our new Democratic overlords, but now I'm not so sure...
She needs to be investigated for her conflict of interest between her position as chair on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee and her husband's firms receiving billions of dollars of defense construction contracts. Oops. She's the chair of the Senate Rules Committee. I guess there won't be any investigations.
When all else fails, run.
Whenever you guys talked about "Child Porn" being used as a scare tactic, I didn't believe you. "I never see that."
But this article, the issue which is clearly being fueled by the MPAA and RIAA, mentions Child Porn three times, including the subheading!
I am beginning to believe.
The Democrats have always been in the pocket of RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood types. Look up Hillary Rosen if you have any doubts. Republicans have scr*w*d up the country but on this issue, they have always been a better alternative. Not because they are more moral or anything, but because they are not as beholden to the Hollywood set.
when you look at the long-term contribution trends http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
Cheers, Mike
Net neutrality is best governed at the state level, especially in large states such as California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If those states, plus a few others, implemented net neutrality laws, then ISPs would have to follow those states' laws in order to do business in those states. Because they're the largest states, the effects will trickle down to the other states who have yet to pass the legislation.
When an federal constitutional amendment is passed which gives Congress the power to legislate Internet protocol, then Congress can decide what's best for the country given the states' laws. This is how the process is supposed to occur, as dictated in the Constitution.
Just like the citizens, the states must assert their rights, or they, too, will lose them.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
A Congresswoman from California that received huge campaign contributions from people in the entertainment industry trying to back-door language to "protect" her primary contributors from the eebbils of copyright infringement? No way! And throwing in the "protect the children!" language. Next you'll tell me that she wants to force content on radio stations.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Could someone do a typical traceroute to Google and explain who pays for each hop along the way. Also how network neutrality would change any of that?
t
This, amongst the other chicanery of congress, is yet another example of why we need to impose single purpose limitations on the bills congress tries to pass.
They can take their riders and try to get them passed as stand alone bills.
I don't get network neutrality. Could someone explain it to me? This is not a troll, this is an honest attempt to understand a different point of view.
I call myself a 'conservatively liberal libertarian' which means I believe markets are great as long as they're reasonably regulated to prevent collusion and outright theft, but I'm not an Ayn-Rand syncophant. I just don't see what the harm in letting people who own pipes on the internet give preference to different traffic on those pipes. I'd gladly pay more to have my starcraft traffic given preference to someone else's email messages or porn downloads. What's the harm in that?
If you say that the prices will go through the roof because companies can charge whatever they want, I really don't think you understand how markets work.
My blog
Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation. Deep-throat said it in the 70s. Just follow the money. Milton was right. We've gotten the government we deserve. One ruled by corporations the use acts of Congress to gain competitive advantage.
Net Neutrality gives the government more control over the internet.
That is exactly why I oppose it.
Just because you hand a nice, benevolent politician lots of power, that doesn't mean the guy that comes after will be just as nice.
Consider what damage someone like George W Bush could have done with increased government control over the internet.
A internet without net neutrality isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative.
Why can't you freaking idiots understand that Net Neutrality is the last thing you want! Are you so mouth-breathing stupid that you forget all about the idiocy, bureaucracy and corruptability of the state just because you want something for your precious Internet? Who do you think is the most likely destroyer of all the things you like about the Internet 50 years from now... Qwest, or the state?
The irony is that laws like this will immediately be co-opted by the very ISP's you hate as a means of maintaining their monopoly. In the end, both the ISP and the state will have gained additional control over the Internet BECAUSE YOU MORONS GAVE IT TO THEM.
Fucking idiots. I don't know why you bother worrying about all the other freedoms we're losing. You don't seem to understand the nature of the beast.
I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a good thing by the tech community. With the amount of self professed Libertarians around here, you would expect there would be someone calling for less regulation on the Internet.
Let me be the first. I applaud the removal of Net Neutrality requirements in any "stimulus" bill.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
I do not live in California and am unlikely to be given any consideration from a politician elected in that state. For those that do live in California please contact Mrs Feinstein and let her know that you will definitely not vote for her again if this rider gets added to the stimulus bill. Her contact info (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.WashingtonDCOffice):
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501
Cheers,
the_crowbar
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
Republicans always get blaimed for everything bad that happens in this country. The sad thing is most Americans don't even know which party is in control in Washington. While the Republican hating masses were giving Congress a single digit approval rating, most of them didn't even realize it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress. And now that there's no opposition in the White House to their stupidity this is what we get. Career politicians protecting the rights of special interests and screw the average citizens. And everyone stands around waiting for Obama to waive his magic wand and everyone gets free healthcare and nobody will ever have to pay for rent or gas and we can all eat cake and ice cream for the rest of our lives. Wake me up when it's over.
AT&T is lobbying in Europe to kill Net Neutrality:
http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-126084/at-t-lobbies-european-parliament-to-destroy-net-neutrality
Is Time Warner really one of her largest donors? Nothing to see here.... FTFA: US Senator Dianne Feinstein hopes to update President Barack Obama's $838bn economic stimulus package so that American ISPs can deter child pornography, copyright infringement, and other unlawful activity by way of "reasonable network management." SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?CID=N00007364
some savior third party? hah.. come on people, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
In these cases, I usually write an email to a Senator. Does some one have one of those pages going (like the ACLU has) that will auto email a protest to my Senator and/or Rep?
Stop posting partisan crap and do something!
This was a quote of Kurt Vonnegut that didn't fit.
Go tell her what you think http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUS.EmailMe She is a senator it doesn't matter what state she is from just go tell her.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Don't blame me, I voted for kodos.
Net neutrality is one of many things that seems to be wrong with this stimulus. Personally, I have no immediate opinion of the stimulus, I'm on the fence about it. What does bother me is that so many lawmakers are using the urgent nature of the stimulus bill for political expediency. Naturally, the response is that they do this all the time, but the stimulus bill really brought them out of the woodwork. Instead of having a straight up and down vote on funding for so many different programs, the congress is sidestepping legislative process yet again by shoving more pet programs and such into the stimulus. I'm tired of hearing justifications for all this spendings prefaced by the line "Well the Republicans for the last eight years ." Who cares about them and the last eight years? Give me some real reasons for this spending, not some 5 year old excuse "I did it because he did it first" nonsense.
I'm probably expecting too much of my government. A government which is comprised mostly of 7th graders.
I wish the president had line item vetoes, it would let us get legislation through, but allow the presidential administration to take out cruft funding. Congress would never agree to this willingly. It's probably just trading one evil for another, though.
Here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
As you can see here:
http://deki.geek-pac.org/Voter_Information_Project/California/Senator_Dianne_Feinstein
Democrats, unfortunately, have a very bad record on information rights issues.
I am a resident of California and I sent a message today to Senator Feinstein to express my displeasure with her actions. If you live in California and you don't want to see this become law, I suggest you do the same thing.
Since this is so naked and obvious I'd say she doesn't care. Why might that be? Oh, right, by appeasing one of the largest lobbies in California it might make her trip to Sacramento a little smoother.
Link: Voter Info Project on Geek-PAC.org
you do not realize that if net neutrality is gone, the control of internet will be given to 2 major controlling providers in united states, without needing 50 years, without needing to go through government, without needing anything else.
at least, you have SOME control on government. but, you do NOT have ANY control over any corporation.
wake up.
Read radical news here
SPEAKER Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR Boo!
SPEAKER Bill defeated.
KENT BROCKMAN I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Net Neutrality kills YOU!!!
I understand why we would all like to comment here, but why not send your comment to her directly, as this bill is supposed to come out of committee today... http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
If you're in California, you might want to contact your Senator and let her know how you feel about this.
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501
Or you can email her at this link
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
no joke. there is an alliance. google, ebay, et al fought against this kind of bullshit the last time it happened 1-2 years ago.
time to call in the troops again, while citizens push on the other front.
Read radical news here
"To clarify that in establishing obligations under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program..."
Now, presumably they expect the reader to research what the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program is, because they certainly don't mention it. It's a broadband access subsidy program. See for yourself. http://www.foxrothschild.com/Newsstand/News.aspx?id=8888 I don't necessarily agree with the amendment, but it does appear to be an attempt to avoid letting subsidy funds be used for embarassing purposes.
...I presume.
I contacted both of my Senators and three Reps from my state.
There needs to be a rule, one item per bill.
Its no wonder our country is in the tank.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a good thing by the tech community.
A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.
You can't take the sky from me...
Hell, they already are sneaking things in like invading your medical privacy , and laying the foundation for rationed health care and was championed by writings by Tom Daschle and others.
Sure, why not go ahead and take net neutrality...and sneak a ton of other crap under the radar, and we need it FAST.
Sounds kinda like how we got stuck with a lot of crap from the old PATRIOT act, eh? I'm surprised they haven't come up with a nifty acronym for this POS.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
...sounds like the net needs to try to kill Senator Diane Feinstein.
LETS ROLL AMERICA
Sure.
The people thought "change" meant a new model with a new engine, a new engine and a new set of practices better matching the constitution.
What they got instead was an oil change so that the current system keeps on going where it was heading before the election: towards the enrichment of the haves at the expense of the have-nots.
Wow, I wonder how much it cost to get her to add that.
Let's face it, if the net is neutral, it just means that our corporations have an easier go of it, versus having to jump through hoops for other corporations. Either way, we're all still shareholders, I mean serfs.
Here's where you are going to see how all politicians are the same be it they democrat or republican. It's the republicans this, it's the republicans that. Isn't it funny how the democrats are appointing people that worked or lobbied for whatever group that all the dem lovers and others as well hate. Vote Obama he's for net neutrality. You know that MAY be but here's his party ready to slip crap in like this that have nothing to do with the economy other than looking for ways to try to stick it to the consumer, you know the people who are the economy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if you feed the 'child porn' 'intellectual property' bullshit to any good but non technical person, they will buy any bullshit you feed them.
Read radical news here
She want to take our guns, and now this. What's next?
Sorry for the Anon post, but I didn't want to blow my mod points away in this thread.
For everybody bitching about this and all the other corrupt politicians, What are YOU going to do about it?
Seriously, for at least the next two years, there is a single party in control of EVERYTHING and there is nothing to stop them from bending us over the table.
What are YOU going to do about it?
And then there's the irony: people on /. so often worry about individual rights, and talk pro freedom, yet in this case they throw the property rights of ISPs out the window (and please don't reply that the common good trumps property rights --- if you do, I'll convince Congress that it is in the public interest to enslave your body and make it available to do my bidding).
Don't just complain about the inevitability of all politicians screwing you over. Fix it with open source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Open_source_governance
Vote her arse out this November.
Yes, just like when the House Republicans cooperated in helping their buddies McCain and Bush pass the bank bailout. Us conservative repubs helped the bailout backing McCain secure the presidency. Without us, Obama would be president.
"What?!! This is nothing!! This happens all the time! Stop worrying!!"
(Paraphrase of Dustin Hoffman character whenever something goes wrong in "Wag the Dog".)
It will be years before we know what is in this abomination of a bill. 5, 10, 15 years from now you'll be reading about the unmitigated stupidity of it.
But I look at it the same way the politicians do - hopefully, I'll be dead by the time the bill comes due.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Corporations are vehicles to make money for shareholders. They have no inherent morals or scruples.
If you care enough to want to make a difference, then why not hold a fundraiser or get some big corporate donations? Do you think you should be able to dictate US policy by whining into a phone or sending an e-mail?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
The Democrats have always been in the pocket of RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood types
The entertainment industry is huge in California, there's no doubt, and I could guess that some connections between it and Broadcast/Telecom might be driving Feinstein's politics.
The thing is, technology is also huge in California, and at least uneasily allied to some degree at the moment. Opposition to net neutrality is opposition to just about any web-based business, or a lot of hardware makers.... *anybody* who provides hardware or software that's used on one of the ends of the network. And these aren't small companies. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, eBay, Craigslist, Apple... all in Feinstein's constituency. There's no reason the management AND the labor in these companies shouldn't all be lobbying Feinstein's office and couldn't have equal or greater influence to the "content" cartels.
Tweet, tweet.
Democrats pretty much gets tagged to anything politically related (even stories that DON'T involve them).
One last time...
Vote against the incumbent in EVERY election! Local and federal.
Ignore party. Party DOES NOT MATTER! They are all career criminals!
If every thinking person in this country made a conscious effort to shuffle the deck in every election for the next 12 - 16 years ... maybe...maybe we'd actually be able to wrestle control of our country away from the corporations and lobbyists...
sigh.
Stop stop stop hurting America. Stop giving these crooks any job security. Fire your local elected critters.
Gee. Do you think anyone in Congress understands the concept of a targeted bill, arrived at quickly, to address a nascent crisis?
How many more "poison pills" can they put into this thing? They've already managed to cause the entire Republican caucus (save 3) to bolt on this mess.
If they keep it up, the public is going to demand a line item veto to neuter Congress' ability to sabotage our entire Union.
I want a government that works.
--
Toro
The problem with net neutrality is that there is no definition of it. I am against net neutrality for this reason. I fear that whatever law is passed will be overreaching. Then, all a company has to do is setup more peering on their network, which is a perfectly valid thing to do, to get around the law.
Personally, if I am buying VoIP from my ISP, I *want* them to guarantee that VoIP traffic gets priority. Since they are terminating it within their network, they can control the QoS from my PBX to their gateways. That is a *good* thing. I specifically choose an ISP for a company because the ISP provided gateways within their network.
The only definition of net neutrality should be that QoS has to be applied equally. Even this that rule, the ISP could still give their VoIP traffic better quality by putting their VoIP traffic on a VoIP-only network and telling all their routers about it.
Republicans always get blaimed for everything bad that happens in this country. The sad thing is most Americans don't even know which party is in control in Washington. While the Republican hating masses were giving Congress a single digit approval rating, most of them didn't even realize it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress
Republicans: in charge of the House from 1994-2006, in charge of the Whitehouse from 2001 until three weeks ago, majority of the Senate from 1995-2006 except for a brief period in 2002 when Jeffords' defection gave the Democrats a 1 member lead (and I guess three weeks when Al Gore was still VP and it was briefly split). Supreme Court essentially narrowly split, although you can credibly argue that the Roberts appointment made the court on balance Republican to some approximation. This is essentially Republican control from 2001 until early 2007.
Democrats: majority in the house from 2006, essentially split Senate from 2006, bare majority for Democrats given Sanders and Lieberman's caucus choice. But given the narrow split, the veto stick held by a Republican presidency, and the composition of the Democratic majority (esp. blue dogs in conservative districts), "control" is a pretty tenuous term for even the two houses of congress. Meanwhile, Republicans still hold the presidency and with Alito's appointment the court becomes arguably more Republican.
Who doesn't understand which party has been in control in Washington?
In 2-4 years, the Democrats won't have that excuse anymore, and accountability is important. I have no problem with people calling them out on specific policy positions and voting them out next election if that's what it takes.
But it's ludicrous to assert that Democrats are primarily responsible for the current state of things. And it's a little extra stupid to accuse others who apparently have a better grasp of recent history than you do of not understanding what's going on. U.S. policy for the last decade has been dominated by the Republicans, there's no other reasonable conclusion. Whether the Democrats can do any better is an open question, but it's really only been askable for about three weeks.
Tweet, tweet.
For TWO out of the last EIGHT years. And of course Republicans held the White House and the Supreme Court the entire time. But don't let that stop you from pretending that our current problems were caused by the 2006 election.
DiFi is DINO on all but two issues: environmentalism and women's issues. Anything else, and she's your standard-issue big business, warmongering Republican.
Ditch the bitch.
Why you people in Cali keep voting for this woman I will never understand.
Republicans have always been in the pocket of big business. What are the RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood studios? Big business.
Only if by "Republicans" you mean "Ron Paul". The "Sonny Bono" of "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" fame was a Republican. All the recent media friendly legislation has passed a Republican Congress with Republican sponsors and broad Republican support.
Take the 1996 Telecom Act, for example. The vote was 91 to 5.
Sure, Democrats have their heads buried far too deep in Hollywoods ass - but it's time to stop pretending that the Republicans are any better.
It would be great for the people if every bill had a clear title and everything in the bill had to be related to the title.
Too bad that its not going to happen until after then next revolution.
Obama never promised to take public financing. Never. What he did do, was say he would be happy to work with the Republican nominee to take public financing - on the condition that an attempt would be made to reign in the 527's.
As McCain had no interest in doing that, and was even breaking the campaign finance laws that bear his name .
Here is another way to contact your rep. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
People are going to figure out that it's time to vote against ALL incumbents. Do this for 10 years and the Thundering Herd of Dumbass in Washington might figure out that they work for the voters. It would be a nice change at the City, County, and State levels too.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Each new piece of legislation can cover only one issue/topic/new law. The words "and", "also", "as well as", "including", and "too" shall not be allowed in any bill.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
What I'd love an economist-person to explain is to what degree the following graphs should terrify my children, and their children, and their children's children.
These graphs show the Monetary Base over time, which is to say the amount of real money (US dollars) that exists. Take special note of the last year or so, into which was born the concept of 700bn bailouts and 900bn stimulus packages.
Monetary Base
isps built the infrastructure on PUBLIC land with PUBLIC subsidies. its NOT theirs.
what's more, if it is to affect millions' liberties, your property rights are indeed out of the window.
the needs of the many comes before the needs of the few. get this in your fucking head.
Read radical news here
Then how would I be able to tell the smart people from the stoopid?
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
...Feinstein does not have my support. She barely supports democratic issues, and is of extremely authoritarian mindset. Verging on fascist in some cases. And I'm a libertarian-leaning democrat, so this pretty much pisses me off.
Aside from being beholden to the media industry (which most California democrats are, sadly), she also:
She's the worst kind of supporter of excessive government control over our lives that you'll find outside of the Republican party. There are plenty of Republicans I like better than Dianne Feinstein.
I detest her. Fortunately, I like Barbara Boxer pretty well.
(Note - can't figure out how to eliminate the blank first bullet. There's no LI tag there, /. is adding it somehow.)
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
The last time a President of the USA, attempted to put his own views behind those of the people he served, haven't seen that in my life time... President Carter fought the changes to his bills which favored special interest groups, leaving no support in congress making him a very useless President till his term ended and Presidents like George H Bush and Bill Clinton started using him to smooth out international conflicts. Do you expect President Obama to give up his power to remain "pure" and what good would it do?
Could not open locked file /oldUS - (Permission denied) are you root?
it is the fact that as the sole decider in your treatment what recourse do you have? You versus the government.
With private control over health care the government can have oversight in the process and laws can be crafted and enforced by the government to ensure fair application of the rules. Do you really think that will happen with the government? While your fighting it for your rights your condition will continue to exist all the while you hope that some government bureaucrat bothers to even look at your case or give it some priority over the hundreds if not thousands of other pleading their case is equally if not more deserving that yours.
In effect you relegate yourself to being like that woman at the recent Obama press show where she pleaded with him to give her a home because she is in a pickup truck. She was in effect stating she is more deserving than those already on the waiting list. Who decides? Government. Look they are already managing that housing issue in Florida and they are botching it. Now you show no fear that they can manage your health care nor do you care if they keep your condition secret?
No what happens when they know your condition fully they will do a measure of your lifespan versus the costs to treat you. Then all those little things add up and suddenly your left without recourse. Not a fun society when the rules and test change based on the needs of government, a government your unlikely to have any protection against.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Feinstein is essentially a moderate Republican. On several occasions, she was one of a few Democrats to break with the Democratic party and support some of Bush's so-called "anti-terror" legislation. The EFF and other organizations rank her low. Etc. California Democrats even tried to censure her, but it didn't go through. She is also the fifth richest senator, worth $50-100 million.
Unfortunately, getting rid of a senior senator is hard because they have so much power, and if you vote them out of office, your state immediately loses influence in Washington.
Still, I hope we can replace her with a socially liberal, fiscally conservative (in the traditional sense, i.e., more libertarian leaning) candidate next time around, someone who represents the people, not big business; I don't care whether the person is Democrat or Republican.
So that Obama can completely eliminate any input from the minority party from any bill that reached his desk? At least now they have to compromise to get something passed. What would stop the D's from putting in everything that the R's wanted just to get something passed quickly, only to have Obama tkae the R's items out line by line? Line item should not be the solution.
The best bet is a one item, one bill approach. This way each item would be voted up or down and you could CLEARLY see who was opposed to what and who was for what items. This way politicians can't hide behind "I voted for the bill to ban money to stem cell research because it had a rider on it that increased military wages by 2% and I couldn't vote against that." It would eliminate hiding behind one thing to vote for another. And it would give the constituents a clear view of what their Senators and Representatives stood for. But you know that is exactly what our Representatives and Senators would fear most...a clear view of what they really are.
Warning: system is shutting down.
may she and the rest of treasonal congress all rott in hell.
solution - end ALL lobbying period
exception for non profits only.
unions and corporations are all about money therefore they should no influence govt
No one who actually studied the positions of the Democrats elected to high office would be even the least bit surprised at this. With nearly all Hollywood pushing Obama you can look at this and realize that it's just for starters.
Remember folks. YOU elected them. You should have listened to what they were saying instead of screaming "Yeah!" every time they dissed Bush.
Let's see...cutting the military down to next-to-nothing and letting Iraq twist in the wind until some religious maniac makes it a dictatership again is next on the agenda, I believe. Following that will be beefing up the DMCA and stiffening the penalties. Don't ever say you were surprised. No one who voted for Obama should be allowed to even say that.
As for the minority of people out there who voted for someone - ANYone - but Obama, the above does not, of course, apply. The rest of you are morons who were asking for it. I mean that quite literally and, yeah, I'm bitter about it. As someone once observed, "I can see why they should suffer for their foolishness, I just can't see why I should as well."
Dear Senator, One of the surest ways for a Senator from California, the home of Silicon Valley, to commit political suicide is to sneak a, "Network Management Amendment" into existing legislation. Your euphemism for killing net neutrality under the guise of preventing child pornography all the while pocketing money from the RIAA and Hollywood lobbyists will come back to bite you. You can be sure that if this legislation passes, there are not enough minions within the realms of Hollywood and the RIAA who can vote to prevent you being ousted from office for your narrow-minded support of an initiative which hurts the public at large. Sincerely,
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
This is quite *obviously* a failed sniper attack driven by private interests. I am pretty pissed to see my representative acting like a puppet and I will do my part to spread the word.
If you live in California, take note and use your democratic power to counter-lobby the people she bends over for.
Could we get a Democratic challenger to go up against her?
One-candidate general elections are a blatant display of dysfunctional government; I don't see why people don't realize how bad one-candidate primary elections are. A district shouldn't have to flip from Democrat to Republican or back before it can kick a bad incumbent out of office.
It did not make it into the congress revision.
See, here's what ULTIMATELY TRULY SUPER PLUS surprised them:
rm -rf Jesus /hell ../PersecuteAllChristiansByForcingThemToCoexistWithLesserPeople
mv America
cd MyMiddleNameIsHusseinSoIMustBeATerrorist
rm -rf LapelPin
cd PlanThatMakesBushCry
make
make install
cd
make
make install
The problem isn't term limits. If there were term limits of one term, then corrupt lobbyists and elected officials would still get into office. Knowing they don't have to worry about any accountability since they can't be re-elected, they would then loot the system for all they can until their time runs out.
No, the problem isn't term limits. The problem is the government. They have thrown the constitution out the window and use the tax code and regulation system for their own gain.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
It's amazing the power corporations have, isn't it? I mean, look how they have systematically expanded work hours, reduced health and safety regulations, put more children to work, and ramped up their pollution over the last 100 years. If only there were some way to force corporations to advertise truthfully, label accurately, and honor the contracts they enter into.
And the political system is obviously corrupt. It's the only plausible explanation for how a candidate gets elected whom I dislike.
If only we changed the entire system of public and private enterprise, the world would finally be the way it should be--exactly how I want it!
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"An error occured while rendering your error request."
If the internal server errors on her website are any indication, technology and the internet are lost on her.
I use to love that she was my state Senator, but the last few years she has... changed. I've lost a lot of respect for her based on the stances she has taken recently, including sticking up for the telcos in the whole warrentless wiretapping issue.
There are only 2 possibilities of why she would push so hard for it:
1) She has no technical knowledge at all and/or not even a basic understand of how the internet works. Just another Ted Stevens.
2) She is being bribed or blackmailed but some ISP.
Nobody in their right mind would want to support this kinda of action unless they are being paid off. Its flat out ludicrous.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Feinstein is not in the Top 20 of MafiAA Senate-trough-feeders, nor is she among the Top 20 Senators bought by Telcos. And she wasn't in 2006 or 2004 (I lost interest at that point).
Don't get me wrong, I think her amendment was crap and I've written to her to say so (I'm a constituent). But she's not being rewarded by the potential beneficiaries of "reasonable network management practices."
At least, not yet... :/
No way dude that is freaking ridiculous
ER
www.anon-tools.us.tc
Nevermind that this is going to explode our already unmanageable deficit, create huge new entitlements and a gigantic Democrat patronage system, and, by the admission of the CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office, will create more recessions down the road. The "urgency" of this bill ensures that some insane riders are going to be attached to it. One thing it won't do is heal the hemorraging of the economy. So keep posting rants on Slashdot about network neutrality all day long. Thanks to entrenched socialists like Boxer, pretty soon you won't have any work to go to anyway.
They can also often take greater risks than individuals would. There are social and material sacrifices humans may be unwilling to make in order to achieve political goals. For example, most individuals are unlikely to risk their jobs, their ability to feed their families, their status in their communities, their lives, or their freedom in order to achieve anything but the most essential political objectives.
But a corporation is fully capable of risking all of this - because, in truth, it does not really exist as an independent unit. A corporation is amoral*, and it is not rational or self-interested in the sense that you or I might be. As often as not, a corporation does not pursue what we might think of as its own interests, but rather the interests of a few individuals within it. If you are an officer of a large bank and you make decisions that destroy it, you may yet benefit personally.
In this sense, corporations (and other organizations) can act irrationally in ways that might be considered insane if done by individuals. Moreover, whereas crazy individuals are unlikely to be capable of collaboration with each other, a corporation acts as a coherent unit even when its actions are irrational. The avoidance of collective action problems is in fact a corporation's greatest strength - but if it goes awry, it makes it tremendously dangerous.
A corporation might risk its success or its existence over copyright, or net neutrality, or any number of issues - issues that we would not take similar risks over. Even such a risk risk were not necessary - or even if its actions were not in its interest. And, doing so, it is much more powerful because it and all its people act as one, whereas to be effective individuals would need to find many like-minded people willing to work together and risk together.
* Note I do not say immoral. A corporation can do things that we find to be ethical, but that does not make it a moral actor (and of course it must be composed of human beings who are by definition moral actors). This is not a blanket denunciation of corporations - our society depends upon and is made better by corporations and may other kinds of organizations, all or most of which may suffer similar problems to greater or lesser degrees.
Net neutrality is the idea that all packets on the net are treated at the same priority. Feinstein's amendment apparently is intended to allow ISP's to block traffic that teh MPAA or RIAA claim is copyright infringement. It is still a bad idea, but has nothing to do with net neutrality. FWIW, in nothern califronia, Feinstein is generally considered to be a Democrat in name only. She has been solidly pro-war, pro-torture, and pro copyright holders for quite some time.
...for Feinstein to run for re-election so I can vote against her. I really hate that she represents CA residents and believe that she does a VERY poor job of it.
I just sent her an email telling her if this language is included, she can count on me to not support her in future senatorial bids for election--Which I wouldn't have anyway, cause I think she sucks at it.
What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"
Thomas Jefferson warned about this, and the corporate aristocracy:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.
No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.
Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
God I hate my fucking Senators some days.
They really know how to make you ashamed of being a Californian.
Consider yourself spoken to.
I think you may need to turn down the rhetoric a little bit. Cable TV/High-Speed Internet is not really a "critical service". We would all survive just fine without them.
If you want to put it that way, there are no crucial services. Food and grocery stores? People can and do grow their own. Doctors? Many people don't have access to doctors. Piped water and sewage? Many people go without those also.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I would love to see a "corporate death penalty"
There is one, corporations can have their corporate charter revoked.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect. At best, the corporation will end up being fined in addition to any penalties assessed to the employees responsible for any wrong doing.
Except it doesn't work out that way all the tyme. Take the Exxon Valdez oil spill for instance. Captain Joseph Hazelwood didn't even loose his license, all that happened to him was he was convicted of a misdemeanor and was "fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service." As for Exxon, it paid a fine but the people who lived there and had their livelihoods messed up have not received a dime from Exxon despite winning $5 billion in court in 1994. Fishermen can't make a living fishing anymore and because they can't afford to buy things that hurts other businesses too.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I personally think we should implement a voting system where you can check the box next as many candidates you like, and each would get one vote from you. This would break the "two party" system, as a voter would feel confident that they are not throwing a vote away on a 3rd party candidate. Candidate with majority of votes wins.
No, I think ranked or preferential voting is better. Instead of voting for as many candidate as you want you rank them. You can give your favorite candidate 5 points, next fav 4, next one 3 and so on. If you want you only vote for one person. All the points for each candidate is added up and the one with the highest points wins.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
..any way you flip it, you get fucked.
Can we please stop voting for Democrats and Republicans?
The difference was that his powers came from the Constitution. Martial law had been declared because of the Civil War and the nation really was in danger.
However not all Lincoln did was constitutional. He suspended habeas corpus which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Ex parte Merryman.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The interstates are nationalized. Nationalize the internet. Let everyone use it freely. We all own it. If some entity puts up a blockage, someone else can offer away around it.
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. He cared nothing for freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson cared very much about freedom and liberty. Yes, he was a slave owner however he never bought a slave. The slaves he owned he inherited from his father and father-in-law. He did free some slaves though, for instance all of Sally Hemings' children were freed. In Thomas Jefferson's drafts of the "Declaration Of Independence" he included a paragraph condemning slavery.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Why should't the net have fees? LET PEOPLE BLOODY DECIDE! You don't want fees? You don't want ads? fine, no site for you. I don't want the net regulated because some whiny asshole doesn't like the fact that he might have to put up with the free market.
However there is no free market.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Right, obviously, since we currently don't regulate the internet and things are just fine, we need to start regulating the internet because....
Things are not just fine. And if ISPs want taxpayer money conditions, like a neutral net, should be a condition of that money.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yea, Nixon was a socialist.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I have bad feet, bad eyes, bad ears, a bad liver, and a bad kidney. Why does that need to be a secret? What are the disadvantages to me of the whole world knowing that (why it would want to is beyond me)?
Do you have health insurance? If so how do you get it? From the government, your employer, or a private insurer? Depending on how you get health insurance you may find you've been disqualified for insurance or you may be asked to pay more.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
well
Citation needed.
Do you even know that government agency have less waste then any corporate group?
Citation needed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
> Cable TV/High-Speed Internet is not really a "critical service".
> We would all survive just fine without them.
Your grandfather would have said the same about the telephone.
Would you agree with him (now)? Your call...
For some reason I read it as: Doctor Frankenstein, ok time for more coffee.
Why would she ever run for governor, when her seniority pretty much guarantees a seat on the US Senate for life*?
* despite some of us who will vote for ANY turd sandwich who runs against her, even if they're worse, just to break up the seniority to give us a bare chance at someone good in the next cycle
First off, "reasonable network management practices" was not Comcast's language. It was the FCC's in their 2005 Internet Policy Statement. The Internet Policy Statement, by the way, is NOT a bad thing, and is very pro-"net neutrality" - it's just not really enforceable at this point because it's just a "policy statement" and not a rule. Second, net neutrality language was put into section 6002 of the version of the house bill (which, from what I understand from the context of the article, is what Feinstein was looking to amend). Section 6002 would codify (that's legalese for "make into law") the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, and the relevant section of 6002 basically says "If you're using government funds to expand broadband internet access to underserved areas, you can't engage in discriminatory network management practices, and you have to abide by the principles in the FCC's Internet Policy Statement." Go to gpoaccess.gov, search for 111 hr 1. Politics ain't pretty, but it ain't impossible to understand either, if people would stop misreporting things.
This is the FCC's Internet Policy Statement from 2005.
It's 3 pages, so it's not like I'm saying "Go read the FCC's order distributing Adelphia's assets between Comcast and Time Warner." Or really, anything the FCC puts out that isn't a consent decree or a policy statement. Who has time to read 180 pages anyway (other than a lawyer...)? But as a shortcut, here's the big stuff in those 3 pages for the purposes of this post:
The four principles in paragraph 4 include "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice." Two of the remaining three principles reference law enforcement and legality. The fourth includes the phrase "consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers," which I would say goes to the heart of the *real* net neutrality debate, since it would also preclude access tiering that would give content providers faster service based on how much $$ they put down, and that in turn would harm competition between content providers.
Second sentence in footnote 15 of the Internet Policy Statement: "The principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management."
Sorry guys, Feinstein's not the enemy here. The reason that amendment wouldn't fly isn't because it's OMG STRICT. It's because it's completely redundant of what is already IN the language of the bill. Those things are illegal, therefore if you brought a claim to the FCC because Comcast cut off your service, even if the FCC followed its Internet Policy Statement to the letter (REMINDER: That policy statement what the telecom section of the stimulus bill would implement as federal law), it already wouldn't protect you from "discrimination" by your broadband provider when you download/upload 25 gigs of copyrighted content over the course of a week. If anything, Feinstein's language would be lighter, because it's only applying "reasonable network management" language to illegal activity. The Internet policy statement applies "reasonable network management" discretion to ALL activity.
Sorry, I've written the better part of 50 pages on this exact topic as it is, so you guys are getting off light if I'm just saying THIS much about it.
... unless it's meant as an insult.
In nearly all the political debate threads spawned in the last few months, and especially just prior to election day, the majority of the posters here (from my recollections and observations) were in favor of Obama, and the ousting of Bush/Republicans.
So now you got these big spending, bleeding heart, liberals deciding your future as a majority in all branches.
They mess with the economy, they mess with socialism, they sign away trillions of dollars in debt to China -- all stuff we knew was going to happen (they were saying it!), and we all knew that was exact opposite of what needed to happen.
So then they mess with your precious interwebs, once upfront, but buried in a provision, and now behind closed doors in a stimulus package pork feel-em-up and its a "grab the torches and pitchforks" crisis?
Hypocrites.
That's progressivism in action - the rich pay more money to the U.S. than they receive in handouts - as it should be.
Taking what a person works to earn is robbery. And neither the rich nor the poor should be getting handouts. This is not how it should be. You want money you can work to earn it. If you can't afford children don't have them, if you do it's your own fault. If someone wants to help those in need they can donate or volunteer.
Civil society can be just as effective as government. And when effectiveness in government becomes important it can lead to fascism.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I do not need broadband at all. I like it, I use it, i enjoy it.
Ah but you said "And how about just letting the free market work it's magic." In a free market more people would have more choices for broadband. In a free market if I, or anyone else, could afford it we would be able to setup a broadband ISP but because of laws and natural monopolies granted to landline phone and cable companies it would be difficult to lay cables or fiber to offer broadband access.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Zip 12345 is Schenectady, New York
California zips start with 9????