Slashdot Log In
Senator Diane Feinstein Trying to Kill Net Neutrality
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:53 AM
from the wonder-what-the-payoff-was dept.
from the wonder-what-the-payoff-was dept.
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 The amendment that her provision was attached to was withdrawn, but lobbyists tell Public Knowledge that Feinstein hopes to put it back into the bill during the closed-door conference committee that reconciles the House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!
Related Stories
Submission: Net Neutrality Could Be Lost Today by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: Net Neutrality Still Lives 102 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Funny)
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.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote.
Sure they can, "one viewer, one vote" for elections, and "one lobbyist, one vote" for bills. Together, this simplifies to "one dollar, one vote", and we all know that corporations have many more dollars than individuals.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 don't need to vote; they have lots and lots of money. And they have JOBS waiting for the politicians when they leave politics. Did I mention money?
The problem is that the political system is rotten. If you can't be supported by a major political party, you can't get elected unless you have lots and lots of money. The political parties are corrupt, so to be supported YOU have to be corrupt.
"But wait, can't we just throw them all out?" Yeah, but the problem with this is that we all want the OTHER party thrown out first. The way the plurality system works, if you vote for a third party candidate, the OTHER party wins. So, whoever starts voting against the two party candidate closest to them in favor of a third party candidate will screw you in the end.
What is needed is a complete change in the way politicians are elected and serve. THAT won't happen because the POLITICIANS have to do it. They like the system the way it is, because it makes them wealthy and connected.
In short, we are doomed.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why do these idiots keep re-electing people like Feinstein? She's done nothing but raise taxes, vote away our rights, and spend money.
THIS California resident votes for whoever the hell runs against her, but it's a lost cause so long as she has all that name recognition.
"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have net neutrality. They want the ability to charge a website for bandwidth that their users are accessing. Now this might be silly but I assume people spending lot's of money lobbing for something only do so when they are planning to start doing it.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Removal of net neutrality would have some key effects:
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarcasm isn't really a rebuttal. But then you knew that, right?
You could try reading Betsy McCaughey's [bloomberg.com] op-ed about the piece, or better yet, go read the actual bill [gpo.gov] in question yourself. And note that that web site is GPO (Government Printing Office), not GOP - I'm sure some dyslexic will misread it and accuse me of being a shill for the Republicans.
Point of fact: nowhere in the bill is an "open" standard for medical records referenced or called for.
Point of fact: In this bill, the government is appointing itself as the entity to ensure that everybody (yes, everybody - there don't appear to be any provisions for people who wish to opt out) has electronic medical records by 2014. The government has also tasked this bureaucracy with developing infrastructure to facilitate the exchange of those medical records.
When any agency (government or private) nominates itself as the caretaker of extensive private information about you, it's wise to have privacy concerns. I don't mean tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, I mean, there should be full & accurate disclosure as to what privacy controls are in place, so that the public can understand & offer feedback on the proposal.
The GP's last 2 sentences are actually spot-on. An economic stimulus bill is NOT the place for a tacked-on afterthought which creates a sweeping change to the country's medical landscape. There are legitimate privacy questions & concerns in the creation of electronic medical records, and to just stuff them into this bill stifles open & constructive debate on exactly what safeguards should be put in place.
Slashdot readers fumed over the PATRIOT act's potential for violating their privacy; this provision could have equally far-reaching impact on your private, personal medical records. So bottom line, I'm asking you to answer this one question:
WHY is the fact that the government wants to take full or partial control of your medical records NOT a cause for concern for you?
Please answer in a complete sentence that doesn't begin with either of these two phrases:
1) "Because President Obama says..."
2) "Well it's not like it's President Bush..."
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Term limits would also get rid of the honest, competent politicians who serve their constituents with integrity.
If we ever get anyone like that, it will be a shame to lose them because of term limits.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats, at least certain members, are as tied to the entertainment industry as much as Republicans are to oil companies.
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I didn't know Feinstein was a Republican.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Hmmm.... My gut thought this might be true, but my brain told me I should pay Myth Busters their due by actually taking a peek at a list of relevant stories posted in Slashdot [slashdot.org].
By browsing through the list of stories which mention a US Senator, there is no identifiable pattern of senators being identified by party. I see many instances of less-known senators of both parties being identified with their party affiliation, and many more instances of well-known senators of either party being mentioned without noting the party.
It is conceivable that a thorough statistical analysis would show some bias, but it is not at all obvious at a quick glance. The AC's post is demonstrably false as written. the R is not always noted, and the D does show up in a negative context (such as here [slashdot.org], or here [slashdot.org]).
I consider this myth busted.
Parent
How ridiculous. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unlike the Republicans, we have true diversity. Of course, I despise all the ones who don't think like I do."
Parent
Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views
And those views are dead on arrival if they conflict with the views of the party/congressional leadership. The NY Times just had an interesting article [nytimes.com] about the oldest serving member of the House. Here's the interesting part:
More troublesome for Mr. Dingell has been the long-term trend toward ideological polarization, making the Democratic Party less hospitable for members with socially conservative views, like his support for gun rights. When redistricting pitted him against the more liberal Representative Lynn Rivers in a 2002 primary, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California sent $10,000 to Ms. Rivers.
Mr. Dingell survived. But like colleagues in both parties, he has chafed under Ms. Pelosiâ(TM)s speakership at the centralization of decision-making within the House leadership. "It started under Gingrich," he said, "and it continues today."
Parent
Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Interesting)
su - President
del
cd
make
make install
Unfortunately for them, by "change" he meant:
su - President
mv
and they never expected to see
cp lobbyists
or
cp taxcheats
Parent
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)
rm -rf Democracy
cd
make
make install
Parent
War profiteering scum (Score:5, Insightful)
More and more evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More and more evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:More and more evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the Clintons were considered the oil company's best friends when Bill was in office. Read "Hear No Evil, See No Evil" by Robert Baer for a fascinating blow by blow account of the author being ordered to help the oil companies by the Clinton administration.
Parent
not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers, Mike
Single Purpose Bills (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Let her know what you think! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Why be so conspicuous? She wants to be governor... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't get Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent