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 The amendment that her provision was attached to was withdrawn, but lobbyists tell Public Knowledge that Feinstein hopes to put it back into the bill during the closed-door conference committee that reconciles the House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.
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.
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
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.
The problem with having no network neutrality as the broadband industry currently stands is that there isn't any regulation. Most Americans have one (maybe two, if they're lucky) choices of ISPs and that is it. If your area or apartment building only has Comcast and you don't like the way Comcast is prioritizing traffic, too bad. You're stuck paying the monthly fee for a service that you're not satisfied with, and there's nothing you can do about it.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
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.
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
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
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
forget all about the idiocy, bureaucracy and corruptability of the state
Companies are just as corruptible, and I'd say the big ISPs are more corruptible because (1) they don't have to worry about pissing off the voters too much and (2) its illegal to compete with them.
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?
I'd say the duopoly ISPs that don't have to care about making people like their service, because the local government forbids competition.
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.
Their monopoly comes purely from the fact that local governments sell them monopolies in the name of not having the streets torn up all the time. Regulating them to be simple dumb pipes would be a good thing, as it would keep this granted monopoly to as narrow an area as possible. (Only granting this kind of power to co-ops would probably be even better, but I don't think that could ever happen.)
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.........
I'd put it another way.
Net neutrality is to the free flow of information as currency is to the free flow trade items.
You want gizmos, you have gadgets. You tell the gizmo vendor you give him two mandays' worth of gadgets for two mandays' worth of gizmos, he tells you he doesn't need gadgets, he needs stuff. You go to the stuff vendor, and exchange the gadgets for stuff. You go back to the gizmo vendor and finally you have your gizmos.
With currency, you just go to the gizmo vendor and buy the gizmos with simoleons, separating the gizmo-simoleons transaction from any other transaction. Provided you can always sell your gadgets at some market price points, you'll always have simoleons to buy gizmos.
Now without Net Neutrality, you'd have to give extra money to the midget porn vendor so that HE can pay your ISP to get interested in relaying midget porn for you. Seen the anecdotical interest in midget porn, it's not even sure midget porn would be available. Compare to the current model where everybody, from consumer to ISP to online service provider, just pays for whatever upstream/downstream they need.
Basically, without Net Neutrality, the Internet would have been yet another AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy.
Basically, lack of Net Neutrality means some videos on online video sites are not available to me because they are "Not available for your country".
Wow, I wonder how much it cost to get her to add that.
I agree and don't really understand the NN argument myself, and generally find myself opposing it. The main net neutrality argument is that ISPs *could* throttle this, or *could* filter that to force people to use their preferred services. I see a couple problems with this argument:
-There are no instances of this actually happening. Creating laws before there is actually a need is not healthy for a free society. As a libertarian-leaning individual myself, I feel it is best to keep laws to only where they promote the maximum benefit to society while minimizing the impact on the rights of others. Creating such a law now would not benefit anyone, while it would infringe on the property rights of a few - if this changes, then, and only then, should such laws be considered
-If ISPs start filtering traffic to force you to use their services, that would fall under existing anti-trust laws. These laws are there for a reason, and this is a perfect example of such a reason. ISPs as they stand now pretty much hold Monopolies/Duopolies on their markets and they stand on a very fine line of being tolerated. Raising their rates or filtering traffic just because they can will certainly put them under anti-trust investigation and they know this. The point is that abusing your position as a monopoly is already against the law, and these are the laws that should be enforced in such a scenario.
-As much as I hate and distrust my ISP (Comcrap), I distrust my government more. Our government is corrupt at all levels as politicians easily give in to whichever lobbyist throw them the most cash and prostitutes. Granted, the executives at these companies have the same priorities, but at least they're honest about it. My biggest fear is this - NN giving the government control of what is or is not filtered and we live in a world of what content we get depends on who lobbies the most. ISP's with plenty of cash to spend still get to have a say in what you get, without fear of anti-trust investigation, while 3rd parties like the RIAA/MPAA make sure technologies like bit torrent are blocked regardless of what content it is used for. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I've lived in NJ most of my life and this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that goes on.
-Finally, and I think most importantly, NN laws simply address a symptom, and not the actual problem - lack of competition amongst ISPs. This is like treating bronchitis with Robotussin - it may make the cough better, but the underlying infection is still there, except now it is easier to ignore while it only gets worse. If any laws need to be passed, it should be to address the limited number of available broadband providers - NN legislation is just a feel-good band-aid solution that fixes nothing while expanding government control over the greatest free-speech forum of all time.
Sorry for the rant.
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.
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.
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.