Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Still Lives
BuhDuh writes "Despite previous reports, and as subsequently discussed here, it appears that Sen. Feinstein's amendment (PDF) did not make it into the approved 'HR1' version of the stimulus bill (PDF). Of course, I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages, but searching for the terms Ms. Feinstein used came up blank, so it looks like we can breathe a collective sigh of relief until someone tries to bury similar proposals in the next wide-ranging, must-pass piece of legislation."
Well then let me be the first to say on behalf of slashdot: "Take that you stupid, bill-hijacking, lobbyist bribed bitch!"
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I can understand someone wanting to keep their cat's fur trimmed... it's just more practical that way... but do come on... shaving the cat is a bit over the top, no?
The MGM bill would get snuck into a stimulus bill one of these days.
So we're back where we started, which is to say, service providers in the driver's seat!
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
We have this new fangled internet thingy that makes it a little more difficult to hide these things. Hope is indeed alive. As for the change part, well that's up to us. Now... about this Conyers bastard... and Hatch, and Lieberman.. I suppose there's little chance of getting rid of them while they bring home the bacon. Stop voting for these people!
What?
Not so new...
"I just called Feinstein's office and..." (Score:1)
by rev_deaconballs (1071074) on Wednesday February 11, @10:37PM (#26819353)
"It did not make it into the congress revision."
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
A bit under the bottom actually.
Reid and Pelosi - screwing over the entire US in order to hand out pork.
Why is it that so many "Liberal Democrats" are against things like Net Nutrality and copyright / patent reform? I would have though they would be all over it, but instead are more repugnant on the issue than Repugnians.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The IRL pirates in Somalia have their own wiki. Time to pirate the pirates!
Can we please, for the love of God, pass something resembling the Read the Bills act.
Although I don't necessarily agree with its libertarian ideological roots, it's absolutely absurd that a 600 page bill can be proposed and voted on before sufficient time has been given to read over and debate the entire thing.
The 7-day comment also sounds like a good idea, as long as there's a provision for emergency action.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages
;)
RTFPDF?
Just a thought
Watch those corners
...I can honestly say I haven't seen any bill with her name on it that I actually agreed with. She's about as close to a Nazi or perhaps Communist, or fascist as one can get in this country.
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for.
We need strict check in check out change control, who did it, when, why, etc RSS feeds, version control for all legislation and regulation for all levels of government from small town park board to the Fed.
from page 656 of the stimulus bill
10 (e) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.--The NTIA shall--
11 (1) adopt rules to protect against unjust enrich12
ment; and
13 (2) ensure that grant recipients--
14 (A) meet buildout requirements;
15 (B) maximize use of the supported infra16
structure by the public;
17 (C) operate basic and advanced broadband
18 service networks on an open access basis;
19 (D) operate advanced wireless broadband
20 service on a wireless open access basis; and
21 (E) adhere to the principles contained in
22 the Federal Communications Commission's
23 broadband policy statement (FCC 05-151,
24 adopted August 5, 2005).
all broadband stimulus grants will be subject to network neutrality.
They're using their grammar skills there.
These 500+ page bills; how is it arguable that documents of that length are not asinine? I recently tried to read the Microsoft privacy statement and EULA for Office (kind of paltry legal docs, relatively speaking) and gave up after 10 minutes.
Something akin to cognitive dissonance had arisen, and like I do with any document/book which causes that - I tossed it.
I can understand when computer code achieves a size like this, or scientific studies, but really - law becomes more and more esoteric, even while it becomes slower and slower to adapt to modern technological and subsequent social conventions.
I await that hoped-for day when that mythical AI which is trillions of times smarter (or at least has trillions of times the patience and time) than us looks through these, to it, crayon drawings, and distills the circular reasonings, contradictions and plain nonsense into a succinctly digestible form understandable to that mythical 'reasonable person' so that we can all have a good laugh. ...or until it launches legions of red glowing-eyed, humanoid military robots to wipe us out.
Either outcome is fine with me.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Surely there's some way of finding out who inserted what into a bill. Just look for a list of changes made by Feinstein.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
You haven't read all 680 pages ?
FYI/FWIW, I just exported the PDF as plain text, placed into InDesign as 10 pt and runs less than 200 pgs.
Further details... the original doc. is double spaced 14 pt. DeVinne, with excessively indented margins on 8.5x11. I used 10 pt. Myriad with 1/2 margins on 8.5x11.
-bc
Given the way the Slashdot crowd acts, and that most haven't gone through puberty yet, I'd say almost everyone here is basically a hairless pussy.
Stop blaming citizens and hoping for the Internet. Nobody in Congress has, apparently, even read the humongous bill (bigger than the cost of the Iraq war, for example). All of the Congressmen and women have perfectly fine Internet connections, I assure you...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Major lesson the leaders of this once-free country need to learn:
1. Banning X does not stop X, it just changes how X is used.
The biggest reason the internet would be censored & How censoring the internet would not help at all, but hurt:
1. To protect young children from learning about insults/slang, sex, and violence. >
A. Children are going to learn curse words & insults/slang, whether it is at school, at the park, with their friends friends, or just by hearing them on the street.
Censoring the internet is a lazy, retarded, un-premeditated way to try to stop children from learning those things.
Children are going to learn them, unless you lock them in a vault and feed them drugs all of their life. Let them learn the true language of english, but teach them what the words and insults really mean, and why it is bad to say them. Set diciplines for when they use the words. There is really nothing the government can do about it besides: improve the education system and crank out more parenting classes.
B. If you are so afraid your child is going to see a naked body, put your own censors on. There are many programs, a lot of hardware and more to do this yourself, instead of hanging around and waiting for the Government to do it.
If the internet is censored, it is going to do nothing but piss people off, and crank out more hackers. There are still magazines, there is still your TV.
If you manage to keep your child away from sex education, your child is very likely to, because of the urges, do extremely strange and illegal things such as:
Peep at any naked body possible, whether it is the girl next door, his/her parent's bedroom, or even the sleeping cat.
Many rapists and serial killers become the way they are because of their parent's overprotection.
C. Protecting your child from violence in movies and games in modern times actually is very dangerous to their behavior.
First of all, the violence in these movies gives the child a better view of what to expect from the real world. Decreasing trust in people in children in fact keeps them from talking to strangers, or taking the "Free ride" home from school, and things like that.
Second, the child better knows how to defend him/herself, and probably why not to fight, if he has seen a gang violence movie, or played GTA IV.
Sure, some studies show that playing games such as GTA IV in rare cases causes mild violent behavior in children. But what the media doesn't tell you, is that the children also become more suspicious of people, and get into less trouble over time, since they get a better idea what people are capable of.
Yeah, when your kid meets his/her creepy grandpa at first, they will be a bit shy. But when kids at school tell him/her to come out back after school for a free ice cream, your kid is less likely to come home with the police in his/her underwear covered in bruises as the police explain to you how lucky your child is to be alive.
So before you, Diana, go around killing net neutrality trying to censor the internet, maybe you should actually consider what really matters, and what does nothing.
Feinstein probably mis-calculated that this would pass before anyone would discover this amendment. It got pulled, because of the negative publicity it generated that might have caused the whole bill from not being passed. Lieberman was outed for his negative contribution to the American Public, a new effort should be made to target Feinstein and get her kicked out of office.
(beginning on page 664 and continuing to page 665 of the stimulus bill)
SEC. 6003. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, a report containing a national broadband plan.
b) CONTENTS OF PLAN.-The national broadband 23 plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all 24 people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include-
(1) an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States;
(2) a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public; and
(3) a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.
-----
It seems to me that part (3) is broadly and vaguely worded, but given the terminology used it seems they are going to delay the attempt at killing network neutrality and possibly try to bring in through the backdoor by way of the NTIA and FCC.
Why bother with the public scrutiny of the legislative process when you can accomplish it by fiat via the bureaucracy?
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
Hey! I am not hairless! It's just not in the right places...
ics
I even convinced the intern I spoke with that Sen. Feinstein was wrong for trying this. However, I do not believe senators like this care what me or any of the "little people" think. I now just try to convince their office staff to switch to another senator's office (should't be that hard in DC and most are volunteers, anyway). I long for the day that corrupt senators have to answer their own damn phone.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
This may look like trolling, but a fact is a fact. The lot of you went knee-jerk through the ceiling regarding a sensationalist British article that avoiding some pretty glaring facts to paint an alarmist picture. Do some research before you rally the troops to fight the great fight, and maybe people won't take you for fools when a real issue comes along.
Says the submitter:
>Of course, I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages,
So the submitter is in good company. There are 535 members of congress who have also not read. In fact, the submitter is probably light years ahead of congress just by virtue of having even looked at it.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Don't try trimming a cat with scissors.
By all means - try. You'll get what's cumming to you.
An express delivery of upset pussy.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
Read the summary. The bill, drafted and passed by a government full of those "Liberal Democrats" does NOT contain anything against net neutrality. Read that last sentence again. Read it again. Again. Again. Are you starting to get it? No? Read it again.
And the person who answered the phone knew EXACTLY what I was talking about. Even when I made it clear that the network policy I had read about related to network neutrality and had nothign to do with "funding broadband" or whatever. She was familiar with the issue and said she would forward it on. She also asked for my zip code.
(She also admitted directly by the way when I asked "is this true?" that Feinstein was trying to get it into the bill.)
Sorry guys, no fly. Try gpoaccess.gov instead - the new version isn't listed there yet either. They just agreed on a final version late last night (2/13), and that version ain't it. The linked PDF file is signed at the bottom. That's the version that the House passed on January 28th (open access language + semi-codification of the FCC internet policy statement) which is different from the version that the Senate passed on February 10th.
US Citizens who voted for Obama need to remind his administration of the open 48 hour Bill pledge, which would rid you of this crap once and for all. At a time when the Congress has the lowest approval in history, and the only thing that has real bi-partisan support is shady Washington business-as-usual it is time for all US citizens to send the Hill a message - That they will not stand for it!
Nice! This really is "change we can believe in".
Why is it that these things only happen when Democrats control the government?
She really got a boost from that Dan White dude in 1978.
Page 14 of the bill specifically prohibits the State of Illinois from spending any money as long as Rod R. Blagojevich is still governor. I do not like this. First, it's unnecessary as he's already been impeached. Second, Personally, this sounds awfully like a "bill of Attainder" where someone is convicted by act of Congress. Further, it might violate some other Constitutional provisions. This sets a bad precedent, because if you allow this sort of thing it can be prostituted into any number of things, e.g. if some particular person is not convicted the state is denied funding.
Whether the guy did something wrong or not, allowing a statute to specifically require someone be in a disadvantaged position is a bad idea. Because first they'll use it on someone who supposedly is really bad because most people either won't care or will approve, then it gets used on other people as the skids have been greased to allow it.
And like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we won't even realize what has happened until maybe one of us gets targeted, e.g. Salman Rushdie being named in a death sentence Fatwa which while Iran has supposedly distanced itself, has done nothing to repudiate it and probably helped in the murders done under its order.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
C'mon. Can we discuss net neutrality, copyrights, and patent reform without stooping to the name calling? "Repugnians"? Please.