Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Senator Diane Feinstein Trying to Kill Net Neutrality

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the wonder-what-the-payoff-was dept.

Government 873

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 The amendment that her provision was attached to was withdrawn, but lobbyists tell Public Knowledge that Feinstein hopes to put it back into the bill during the closed-door conference committee that reconciles the House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!

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813429)

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!

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (5, Funny)

kick6 (1081615) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813527)

What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813571)

That's the bloodsucking Jews for you.

Other people live off tilling the land - the Jew lives off the tiller.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813573)

Ah, but a corporation is a person by way of legal fiction. The politicians are just thinking of the people...

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813961)

Close, but no cigar. Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (5, Insightful)

John Anonymous (73428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814087)

Close, but no cigar. Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.

Corporations are much more powerful than people: they are after all comprised of people, who can vote; they can "live" longer than people; they typically have much more money and resources than people, with which to lobby governments; and since there are generally many people working for a corporation, they have a lot more person-hours to spend on lobbying, etc. than a natural person.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813975)

The first sentence is true. The latter is false. If you want to go down that road then let me explain. There are only a few broadband companies in the United States of America. In addition they employee very few people compared to other types of companies. This said... almost every other corporation in the US is a customer of these few companies. So IF they were REALLY thinking of the PEOPLE (Corporations at large as a general interest) THEN they would be SUPPORTING NET NEUTRALITY!!!!

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814155)

And since so many corporations are less than 12 years old, they're really thinking of the children.

My spin services are available for a modest fee, with a possible youth discount.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Informative)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813581)

What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"

Which amendment put "government of the people, by the people, for the people" into the Constitution, in the first place?

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813647)

When the people stop getting involved.
contact this person, inform them, get involved with your representatives.

Most people just complain.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (5, Informative)

LNX Systems Engineer (1443681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813739)

Slashdot!

Feinstein's webpage has an e-mail me section [senate.gov] , from which you can request a USPS snail-mail response. You know what to do! [senate.gov]

Ms. Feinstein,

I do not believe it is your place to single-handedly eliminate this country's technological future by sneaking in an anti-net-neutrality provision at the conference committee.

You should leave that decision up to your colleagues by introducing a separate bill. You wield a very might sword, one whose power you seem to be unacquainted with.

Have some honor, respect, and dignity. For six of the last eight years, our country was plagued with a congress that did the sort of despicable things that I speak of - and you were thwarted from doing.

Take the removal of your provision from the stimulus bill as a sign: this stimulus bill has no place legislating communications policy. You are sabotaging this country's Internet future.

I should know, I work for one of our nation's largest telecoms and my team and I engineer the core networks that make the Internet possible.

Please hear my plea of openness and transparency - we, the People, expect - and should receive - more from our leaders than shadow amendments inserted into much needed legislation.

Thank you,

Mr. XXXXXXX

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (2, Funny)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813925)

So I have come to realize that most slashdotters are for net neutrality, but I am still confused as to why?

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814185)

Because most people understand that it will kill e-commerce if website now have to pay for bandwidth to their servers and for the bandwidth to the end users (Which the end user is paying for already by the way).

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

jriding (1076733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814171)

sent email. Request snail mail.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813969)

Given that that phrase isn't in the Constitution to begin with, it'd be pretty hard for an Amendment to change it. (hint: Gettysburg Address)

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (5, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813713)

She's not a good Democrat. Step 1 for Democrats was to get more elected Democrats. Now that is accomplished, step 2 is to get better Democrats.

Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election. We can certainly find better Democrats than these people.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813829)

She's not a good Democrat. Step 1 for Democrats was to get more elected Democrats. Now that is accomplished, step 2 is to get better Democrats.

Thank you for sharing the Daily Kos theme song with us ;)

Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election

Good luck with that.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Insightful)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813995)

I live in California. Feinstein is my senator. She was my senator 12 years ago when I was taking government in Jr. High. She'll probably still be senator when I'm 50.

The joys of living in a blue state with no term limits on senators...

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814101)

The joys of living in a blue state with no term limits on senators...

Even if your state wanted to it couldn't put term limits on Federal offices. It was tried and SCOTUS shot it down [wikipedia.org] . We'd need a Constitutional Amendment to term limit these bastards. Given that the Congresscritters themselves get a vote on amendments through the typical process, we'll have to convince 2/3'rds of the state legislatures to call for a convention.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814019)

Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election. We can certainly find better Democrats than these people.

The Senate is run almost entirely on seniority. No one is going to give up a Senator with that kind of seniority and replace them with someone of the same party unless the Senator gets convicted of a felony or something, and even then it's not certain.

Entrenched Senators only lose their seats when they retire or when there's a massive demographic shift in their district that moves more people of the opposition party in. The primaries are just a formality when a senior Senator is involved.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814135)

The beauty of that plan is the simplicity. That's one thing I learned in Nam....

    Stupid plan that won't work. She'll stay in power as she already has for sometime.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814187)

re: your sig

Sorry about that.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813781)

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!

Ah, see? And yet again, because it's a Democrat party senator going against the ./ grain, the little (D) mark after the name is absent from the intro blurb. Curious how that always happens. Whenever it's a Republican senator or congressman in the hot seat, that little (R) is right there to make sure everyone knows it. I've pointed this out before, and here it is again. Coincidence? Oversight? Not this many times it ain't.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1, Insightful)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814015)

I usually catch things like this, but didnt this time. Nice one, which I had mod points for this AC.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814097)

There are two reasons the D is likely missing:

1.) Slashdot editors are lazy
2.) Everyone already knows Feinstein is a Democrat. She's one of the leaders of the party, and one of the people the Republicans are always complaining about. Anyone who pays attention to politics at all knows she's a Democrat.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Interesting)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814197)

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. I gave up the label thing (and ended any personal party affiliation) long ago when I finally realized it doesn't really mean all that much, but this borderlines on FUD and it actually happens in quite a few places.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813907)

just like how gas prices weren't going to go up once we got the oil man out of office. well, he's out and prices are going back up. does this make barak an oilman now?

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814129)

does this make barak an oilman now?

Shit, I always suspected he had ties to the Middle East but who knew it was via oil ;)

(That was sarcasm for those too dense to grasp it)

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (3, Insightful)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814003)

The labels of democrat and republican are horribly uninformative; and people, including yourself, should stop labeling them so. Just because they label themselves one way or another doesn't make them non-politician. That's the label we should all agree on :). Lobbied Politician.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26814137)

This "stimulus" has more intrusive government BS that will impact my daily life than anything GWB ever did.

Federally holding/monitoring my medical records?
Ending net neutrality?
Etc?

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1)

kingcobra0128 (1131641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814147)

LOL MPAA and RIAA should of been taken out a long time ago. They are so backwards. suing the fans that listen and watch there art work. oh yeah I am glad I live in Canada where they don't restrict our artwork. like say if we want to download music and create something different slightly with it we can and are allowed to but don't try that in the states. Canada is the greatest country to live in even with its cold winters :D

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (4, Interesting)

NoodleSlayer (603762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814165)

Feinstein is that special brand of Democrat coming from a state where there's almost no viable Republican challengers so she's free to give the American people the bird as much as she wants. There's rumors that Schwarzenegger might run against Barbara Boxer in 2010 though.

Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26814175)

If you havent realized it yet, Republicans and conservative philosophy are way more friendly to net neutrality than the democrats who want to control everything. You may never have even heard the phrase "limited government" because the Left wing establishment wants your slavish vote for Obama

I also heard that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813435)

she never declared the free massages she got from Obama. They're worth like 100K

What a bitch, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813449)

She must be doing it for her black boyfriends working for the NiggerToys(tm) industry.

White women are dirty bitches, they'll fuck anything if it's 12 inches long and 8 inches wide as long as they aren't caught doing it.

Packet Sniffing (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813491)

Perhaps she is trying to get packet sniffing to correct spelling errors on the internets...
FTFA

California's senior Senator is now hoping to insert this language via conference committee - a House-Senate pow-wow were bill disputes are resolved.

What a joke :-P (1)

PlanetX 00 (623339) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813507)

Stimulus bill hahahah whatever

How ridiculous. (5, Informative)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813535)

Democrats NEVER hide unnecessary spending [nostimulus.com] or unrelated projects [wsj.com] in omnibus spending bills. They're for responsible government [cagw.org] , remember?

Change! Transparency!

Re:How ridiculous. (3, Informative)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813721)

They are all crooks. The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.

Change we can believe in ROFL. I'll bet now not one real change will happen.

Re:How ridiculous. (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813939)

The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.

My favorite was all the whining I heard from the far-left when Bush was selling the TARP plan by telling us how society was going to collapse if we didn't pass it. "Bush is just trying to scare us so he can raid the treasury!" they all said. I'm glad that Obama is above such fear-mongering to pass his agenda. He would never use loaded words like "catastrophe" [boston.com] , would he?

Re:How ridiculous. (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813731)

What I don't get is how content that was never voted on in the original Senate or House bill can get added during the conference committee.

Re:How ridiculous. (1)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814115)

Yeah. Content that was never voted on in the original bills AND that has nothing to do with the eventual purpose of the bill. What a stupid system..

Re:How ridiculous. (4, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814119)

Because there are no rules at all as to how the conference committee should go about formulating the compromise bill.

Note that the compromise bill *does* have to be voted up or down (but no amendments) by both the House and the Senate afterwards. That is in fact the purpose of the conference committee--it resolves the paradox that the House and the Senate amend bills *separately* while they are on the floor, but must both vote in favor of an
*identical* bill in order for that bill to advance to the President for his signing or veto. If the conference committee gets too cute in abusing their powers to write whatever they want, the chambers can vote not to pass it. It doesn't happen often, but it *does* happen, and almost the only time it happens is when the conference committee strays too far from making an actual compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Re:How ridiculous. (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813801)

Nice try, slick. Take you Republican group think elsewhere.

Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views. To relate what this person is doing, to what Barack said he would do is just ignorant.

I hate feinstein and always considered her a wolf in sheep clothing.

No, Barack is not some messenger from fairy land sent here to save us all, but he is attempting to do what he claimed.
He is the president, not a king. As such he must deal with political realities.

Now for somethinf completly different:

You charge 18 bucks for a house call, plus 18 an hour 1 hour min.

How is that working out? I had a hard time making that go when I tried it.

Re:How ridiculous. (5, Informative)

ForrestFire439 (1458475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814059)

Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views.

Right... Because Republicans are just mindless automatons while the Democrats are the epitome of critical thought and non-partisanship. EastCoastSurfer's got it right. They're all crooks. You might want to do some reading into the history of the Democratic party.

Re:How ridiculous. (5, Insightful)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814091)

Way to make it personal, asshole. I'm a college student so I can get away with charging 20 bucks an hour undercutting everyone else (high gas prices and an outdated website, you see; the website does no selling for me) and it's still a reasonable amount of money considering my expenses -- and I'm really good at what I do, if my continued referrals mean anything.

Discarding the politics of personal destruction and returning to the issues, it's silly of you to assert that only Democrats have dissonance within their ranks. There are many varied viewpoints in the Republican party, from the wacky (and IMO quite stupid) Creationists to the pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage Giuliani conservatives to the corrupt idiots like Ted Stevens who I'm happy to see go. People like me consider the Ted Stevenses and the Arlen Specters and the Olympia Snowes (the latter two of which supported this pork-laden stimulus package in the Senate) to be, as you say, wolves in sheeps' clothing.

And unfortunately, Barack was pitched to us as a messenger from fairy land sent to save us all, that he would magically make everything better. He can't even instill his own purported values of transparency, freedom of information and clean government in his own party members despite his sweeping election. There is no hope for them; indeed, I think they've started to rub off on him [bostonherald.com] -- there are no pork or earmarks in the stimulus bill, but there are special spending projects and shovel-ready construction projects and countless other Democrat special projects [wsj.com] that just can't wait to garner Democrat votes with government dollars.

Re:How ridiculous. (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814151)

But all Republicans are the same, right?

Re:How ridiculous. (4, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814163)

Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views.
--snip--
I hate feinstein and always considered her a wolf in sheep clothing.

"Unlike the Republicans, we have true diversity. Of course, I despise all the ones who don't think like I do."

Re:How ridiculous. (2, Insightful)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813851)

You're right of course, but you'll probably get modded into oblivion here. Not that the Republicans are any better, either. They're as guilty as the Dems for pissing away hundreds of billions in Iraq over the last six years.

Where's the party that wants to reduce the size of government, spend less, and hold people and corporations accountable for their own actions? The one that still believes if you touch a hot stove, it should hurt? I could care less what its name is as long as those things are in its platform. I'd support the Libertarians, but their pro-drug plank makes them un-electable in mainstream America today (regardless of your feelings on the drug war, that's a fact). How do we get the fuckers in Washington to just STOP blowing trillions of our dollars already?

Re:How ridiculous. (2, Interesting)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813881)

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope that the 2006 and 2008 elections are a wake-up call that conservative principles WORK and are popular -- the Republican party shouldn't be Democrats Lite, it wins voters by offering something more.

Re:How ridiculous. (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813953)

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Change and Transparency (and jobs, jobs, jobs!) are the new Terror and Security. Out with the stick and in with the carrot, and the Kraken continues its growth unchecked.

Re:How ridiculous. (2, Funny)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814001)

They're for responsible government, remember?

Wrong..Republicans are for responsible gov't...Democrats are for stealing money for republicans and giving it to the welfare line folks. Jeez, get it straight boy!

Re:How ridiculous. (3, Interesting)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814079)

Why do we allow bills to be so big anyway? That makes it so easy for people to slip things into them like this without anyone noticing.

If I were president, I'd veto any bill that was over 10 pages long, 12 point, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins. If you want your bill to be longer, break it up into smaller bills.

Re:How ridiculous. (1)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814149)

Hear hear. Stop stuffing your bills with crap and be straight with the populace, for once. Anyone whose congressperson isn't, on either side of the aisle, should vote against them.

Of course, I'm not sure many members of Congress can count higher than about 400. "The vote on H.R. 21576 is called to order." "What?!"

Ummm... (5, Funny)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813569)

I for one welcomed our new Democratic overlords, but now I'm not so sure...

Re:Ummm... (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813657)

And in a scant 2 years' time you'll do it all over again.

Re:Ummm... (3, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813797)

Unfortunately, while Diane Feinstein is a great democrat in other areas, she is firmly on the side of copy protection, DRM, the RIAA, MPAA, and media distributors in general. This has nothing to do with the Democrat take over of congress, or going back on campaign promises, Diane Feinstein has always been this way. Even though I'm a hard-core democrat, I voted against her in the elections every time when I lived in California (I've vote instead for the Peace and Freedom party). Here's the form letter I got back in response to my letter I sent to her complaining about some new draconian copyright law:

Thank you for writing to me about music file-sharing. I appreciate your thoughts on this important topic and welcome the opportunity to respond. I have always believed that the protection of intellectual property rights is vital to a flourishing economy -- particularly in California. As new technologies, such as P2P file sharing, have developed over the past few years it has become increasingly difficult to protect intellectual property from illegal copying and distribution. I believe that we must work to prevent the creation of digital copies of copyrighted works that can be illegally distributed throughout the world. The "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" (S 2560) is currently pending consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come up in the Committee. Again, thank you for writing. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

There you have it, she's pretty much in the media content protection camp as far as she can go and she's always been that way. Meh... I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that the senator who draws her financial support from Hollywood would be interested in "protecting" copyright. It doesn't mean I like it any more and I do wish she would go away.

Re:Ummm... (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813763)

Both parties are bought and paid for.

That anyone ever thinks differently must lack critical thinking. The people in power are corrupt, and the weaker party, which happened to be in power last time, is going to swoop in and fix everything.

Fuck, half the problem is that this country wasn't set up as a democracy, but a republic. But then it started with electing the president directly instead of state legislatures deciding themselves, sending electors that were little more rubberstamps, and then an amendment where the senators get voted in by the people, instead, again, of the electors deciding. The republic originally envisioned would have had several layers, with people voting the bottom local layer, and then those layer of people voting up another level, etc.

The net effect is that, I as a lone and insignificant voter, instead of just voting for a few people that I know better on a local people - get swamped with choices on every level - local, state, federal. Who has the time for it? You know how people complain about choice and linux distros? This is 100x worse. The end effect is that people start voting down the line for parties. National Parties evolved.

Such a system also gives the mainstream media undue power, puppet strings whereby to agitate voters into their agendas who in turn wail to their politicians, all the way up to Senators and Presidents, about the latest insignificant thing. It's not a good way to keep government limited if people always demand things from the government. If senators, as originally, were appointed by state legislators or governors - there would be focused on more than winning the next election.

Re:Ummm... (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813823)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of fucks. In Soviet Russia, it's what has you now.

According to Dailykos, as an evil Republican I'm supposed to be fiddling while Rome burns, cackling gleefully about the worm turning. Unfortunately, we're all going to have to eat the same shit sandwich, so I'm not exactly gloating right now. Right now I'm just worried about my bank becoming an arm of the government.

Re:Ummm... (5, Interesting)

jackspenn (682188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813909)

Yeh, I have a lot of friends who believed by "change" Obama intended to:

su - President
del /SpecialInterests
cd /newUS
./configure
make
make install


Unfortunately for them, by "change" he meant:

su - President
mv /SpecialInterests /opt/agenda2009

and they never expected to see

cp lobbyists /home/whitehouse/cabinet/

or

cp taxcheats /home/whitehouse/cabinet/

Re:Ummm... (5, Funny)

ekimminau (775300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814143)

But what they REALLY didn't understand was going to happen was: cd /oldUS
rm -rf Democracy
cd /newUS
./configure --opt ++Socialism ++cronyism ++ChicagoPolitics ++PorkSpending
make
make install

Re:Ummm... (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814121)

I for one welcomed our new Democratic overlords, but now I'm not so sure...

That's democracy for you (aka pretty much the worst political system there is, except for the others tried so far).
New *, same as old *.

* : random politician.

Re:Ummm... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26814177)

That's because you're an idiot. California has two of the worst senators in the US Senate. Who elects those clowns? Is the airhead-botox vote that large of a demographic in California?

War profiteering scum (5, Insightful)

Whammy666 (589169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813601)

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.

Re:War profiteering scum (1, Flamebait)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814017)

Basically she could be declared the most corrupt and evil Senator ever except Ted Kennedy won that award already.

Child Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813615)

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.

More and more evidence (5, Insightful)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813617)

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.

Re:More and more evidence (4, Interesting)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813673)

Yes, to regulate a given industry, you want the party who isn't in the pocket of that particular industry. Generally that's the Democrats, as the Republicans are in a lot more pockets, but there are some exceptions, and Hollywood is one.

Re:More and more evidence (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26814037)

Good thing the Democrat candidate for president accepted the public funding for campaigning, while the greedy Republican candidate went back on his word and got money from outside sources (ie: corporations, etc.)

Wait, what? It was the other way around? Gee... Imagine that....

Well..then... Good thing Democrats are trying to cut out pork from the stimulus and keep faithful to the American People, rather than the American Senator or American Corporation, while the greedy Republicans are.......

Wait, I got that one wrong too, didn't I....

Re:More and more evidence (2, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813751)

because they are not as beholden to the Hollywood set.

No, instead they're beholden to the Oil and Military set.

Re:More and more evidence (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814057)

Republicans know where the money is.

Re:More and more evidence (1)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814139)

Of course. However, that has little to do with what we are talking about.

Net neutrality (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813679)

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.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

JayWilmont (1035066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813839)

The internet falls under "Interstate Commerce", so no amendment would be required.

However, it would be great if some of these states would legislate net neutrality in such a way that it preserves it for everyone.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813857)

Good luck getting that passed in California.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814131)

Bad idea because then you get state level politicians who succumb to lobbying in a less visible manner (we tend to pay attention to fed stuff more then state/local stuff). You think the lobbyists would have a hard time bribing people in california? That's the home of the movie industry. Some company would find a way around a state level by parking their headquarters in a state that is friendly to them.

The best option is a bill with ONE topic on it - net neutrality.

Shocked! (2, Interesting)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813681)

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.

Re:Shocked! (4, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814053)

She does. She supports the "Fairness Doctrine" even though it will actually be a restriction on Free Speech. I sent a message to her via her website about it but of course I never got a reply.

Traceroute and Network Neutrality (2, Interesting)

haystor (102186) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813687)

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?

Re:Traceroute and Network Neutrality (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813897)

It isn't about the menial hops between you and Google. It's about ISPs deciding who can and cannot have a meaningful presence online.

It's a legal minefield at the moment, but if neutrality isn't enshrined in law it's conceivable that they could start throttling traffic from arbitrary sources so much that they would effectively block them. Youtube would disappear, replaced by your ISP's choice of video streaming solution.

Comcast has a monopoly in my area, and I don't have any other choices for my internet service. If they went ahead and throttled services I rely on to the point that they become unusable, I have absolutely no recourse. Network Neutrality, in part, ensures that Comcast can't arbitrarily block things they don't like.

Re:Traceroute and Network Neutrality (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814207)

If they start throttling sources, then it is all about the hops between me and Google (or Youtube, whoever...)

Which hops between me and one of these places that will be throttled are going to be affected? Who is paying for those hops currently? Will they start demanding money from both sides of the exchange?

Single Purpose Bills (5, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813743)

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 Net Neutrality (1)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813765)

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.

Re:I don't get Net Neutrality (4, Insightful)

Admodieus (918728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813861)

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.

Re:I don't get Net Neutrality (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814023)

The biggest down side for me, as I understand it, isn't so much having different pricing schemes for different traffic. It's the ability to re-direct or block traffic the ISP doesn't like. Let's say that Time Warner and Yahoo! [timesonline.co.uk] enter a deal. Suddenly people who have Time Warner as an ISP can't go to Google. Or any other "competing" web-site. Or even if you can get to the competition site, it's 5x-10x or more slower than the preferred engine.

Carried out to extremes, it could mean that you could only visit Turner broadcasting (subsidiary of Time-Warner) sites in a reasonable manner, because they're the preferred sites. And they could block any content that might be seen as infringing on any of their corporate copyrights, regardless of whether it does or not (no DMCA counter-notices when the DMCA wasn't involved in blocking the material).

At its worst, it gives the ISPs the ultimate control over the content their users see, and how they see it. Would it get that bad? Honestly, I don't think so. But knowing that nowadays a lot of people get service from a single provider (cable, Internet, phone), a significant number of people might find the idea of switching providers tougher because of all the other changes...if they even have another option (besides dial-up or doing without).

Re:I don't get Net Neutrality (1)

ffejie (779512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814205)

Well put, but a bit extreme if you ask me. You say yourself it probably wouldn't get this bad.

Currently, Time Warner can enter an agreement with Yahoo! and block Google. Why don't they? Because of massive customer outrage and consumers switching. Imagine the fall out for Time Warner. Is government regulation really the way to prevent this from happening, or is traditional consumer choice the cure?

Re:I don't get Net Neutrality (1)

ffejie (779512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814081)

Mark,

I agree with you on this issue for many of the same reasons. As I understand it, the argument against your view is two-fold:

1. ISPs could block objectionable websites, or even websites of competitors.

2. ISPs could launch their own service, VoIP is a good example, and intentionally delay competitors packets to degrade quality, even if the network isn't busy. This spirals into an argument about ISPs asking for "ransom" money from over the top providers like Google, if they want their traffic to be expedited.

It seems clear to me that the ISPs are incented to not do either of the above, because as a user, I will object and switch carriers. The counter to this is that there is not enough broadband choice in most areas. I agree with this statement, but I don't believe it's the governments job to ensure broadband choice if the economics don't support it.

Further, it's clear to me that there are no current Net Neutrality regulations, and there are no real egregious offenses out there by ISPs.

Re:I don't get Net Neutrality (1)

GTarrant (726871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814199)

The reality of government interference makes this unlikely.

To whit:

First, in many areas, it simply isn't possible for competition to arise because deals have been made with local government preventing additional licenses from being granted - Verizon, for example, has had difficulties getting FiOS into some areas because cable companies have simply paid off the local government to block any and all other possible licensees. Since in any area each provider must be licensed at the city, county, state, and federal level, any one of those entities can block expansion, and they do. If there's only one or two providers (for example, one cable and one DSL), people could lose access to content they want and have no way to obtain it due to lack of competing service.

Second, the existing pipes were laid often with heavy subsidies from federal, state, and local governments, making it difficult for a competitor to lay their own infrastructure. If existing Company A laid down their lines with government subsidies, in the event that a competitor can even get a license to operate, Company B will generally get no such subsidies, and thus may have to charge so much more for service (to pay the cost of laying the lines) that no one would choose them over Company A - thus they don't bother to try to lay them in the first place.

I would say that in the case where traffic can be assured to be going from Point A to Point B without going through any lines or equipment that was subsidized by US taxpayer, and in an area where there is no local or state government preventing suitable competition for service, one could argue that the entities involved should be able to the control the traffic. Since that is, in today's world, practically impossible, I believe they should remain neutral.

*sigh* (1)

beringreenbear (949867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813821)

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 will cause problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813877)

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.

Good! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813887)

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.

DJICK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813889)

won't be shouting Our chances our chances lost its 3arlier Shouts To the

Good for the Dems (1)

ffejie (779512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813913)

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.

Let her know what you think! (4, Informative)

the_crowbar (149535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813915)

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 [senate.gov] ):

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

Reality Check (3, Insightful)

GottliebPins (1113707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26813943)

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 Neutral (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26813987)

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

Move Along.... (2, Insightful)

d0n0vAn (1382471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814045)

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 [opensecrets.org]

who do you think you voted fore? (1)

skydude_20 (307538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814047)

some savior third party? hah.. come on people, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So, Who do I Write? (1)

chiefthe (672735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26814071)

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!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?