Slashdot Mirror
Deaf Advocacy Groups To Verizon: Don't Kill Net Neutrality On Our Behalf
Dega704 sends this quote from Ars:
No company has lobbied more fiercely against network neutrality than Verizon, which filed the lawsuit that overturned the FCC's rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking and discriminating against Web content. But the absence of net neutrality rules isn't just good for Verizon—it's also good for the blind, deaf, and disabled, Verizon claims. That's what Verizon lobbyists said in talks with congressional staffers, according to a Mother Jones report last month. "Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea," the report said. With "fast lanes," Web services—including those designed for the blind, deaf, and disabled—could be prioritized in exchange for payment. Now, advocacy groups for deaf people have filed comments with the FCC saying they don't agree with Verizon's position."
We don't give a shit.
(This should have been the Verizon ad all along.)
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
The modern World Wide Web is itself in a state of disability. Long gone are the days when World Wide Web pages were lean and loaded quickly. Today we get monstrous web pages that include megabyte after megabyte of useless privacy-destroying user tracking JavaScript, unnecessarily large and pointless images, and massive CSS stylesheets necessary to give that truly hipster flair.
Then there are modern World Wide Web browsers. Chome, IE, Firefox and even Opera all now have UIs that have been dumbed down to the point of being totally useless. Good gosh, the hamburger menus of Chrome and Firefox are so jumbled and confusing these days. The configuration dialogs have lost so many useful options, too. And these browsers look totally the same! I can't tell the difference between new versions of Firefox and new versions of Chrome. They're visually identical. And these browsers are still slow as molasses, even on super fast brand new workstations.
Normal, perfectly able people become disabled these days merely by using modern World Wide Web browsers to access modern World Wide Web sites. I feel particularly sorry for those who do suffer from actual disabilities. Their World Wide Web experience must be absolutely atrocious, given how the hipsters designing modern sites and browsers don't give a rat's ass about accessibility.
My hearing is bad enough that I need to use hearing aids, although I can get along to some extent without them. When I watch TV, I always have the Closed Captioning turned on and have, in fact abandoned shows that stopped providing it. Yes, providing it at need uses up a little more bandwidth, but very, very little. We don't need to throw out Net Neutrality to get closed captioning, especially when you consider the fact that most people won't ever need it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I'm not surprised, alleging that the telegenic interests of assorted groups just so happen to be aligned with your bottom line is an old strategy; but this is pretty incoherent even by the low standards of the genre.
Yes, if there were a fast lane, one could theoretically put special-deaf-packets in it (or just as easily shove them into the slow lane, if they can't afford to pay); but this ignores the more pressing question of "What, pray tell, is currently suffering for want of special bandwidth and how demanding must it be if your existing service can't cope?".
I can imagine that certain disabilities might drive modestly higher bandwidth demands (the deaf, presumably, don't get much use out of VOIP, which is lower bandwidth than video good enough to make lip reading or signing an option; but last I checked uploading and downloading video wasn't exactly a niche case, even if it is one where Verizon can't seem to get Netflix working...); but nothing that exceeds the current or near-term demands of most internet users.
They obviously won't prefer this interpretation; but just how awful is Verizon planning to make the non-fast lane if these special disabled services will need to be fast-laned to work? Anyone?
Exploiting the technical ignorance of elderly congressmen by lying about the technical needs of deaf folks.
Its pretty scummy tactic. Unfortunately for Verison disabilities activists can be INCREDIBLY noisy when they are shat upon, so I doubt our deaf friends are going to tolerate this guff at all.
Go deaf dudes!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
you can pay more for better service! Verizon, we're here to help.
This is a tactic they've been using for a while.
The telecoms offer cash grants to various groups who really don't know anything about the issue of net neutrality but if they want the money they have to sign off on it, often in the fine print somewhere. The telecoms get to pretend to be good guys for helping out needy non-profit groups and they get to put those groups on a list to wave in front of congressmen. In the past there wasn't enough publicity for those groups to even find out how their good names were being abused. But now people are starting to notice.
Is Verizon's argument that Net Neutrality is bad because they cannot ransom special groups? "allow ISPs to create Internet "fast lanes" for companies that can afford to pay for speedier service" [Emphasis mine]
whenever you say you're looking out for me, I'll demand the opposite.
Even if it's nuclear bombardment. That's right, I'll take thermonuclear annihilation over anything to do with Verizon.
The chances that this "fast lane" will be used to service the deaf or blind is zero. This is the most ludicrous idea I have ever heard.
And I have never needed, used, or even been aware of any service provided to deaf people by Verizon. I honestly have no clue what they're talking about, and it's one of the lamest, skeeziest attempts to wheedle money I've seen in a while. Fuck you, Verizon.
Aww, poor little disabled you. Sure we'll help you out.
You get to pay extra!
Yes, yes, you're quite welcome.
Stupid world.
"Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of pedophiles to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea," the report said. With "fast lanes," Web services—including those designed for pedophiles—could be prioritized in exchange for payment.
There is really only one answer to Verizon. They need to be broken up. Is the government wont do it, we should do it.
Are they considered deaf?
Regards, George Washington.
I have a hand sign I'd like to show you. But don't worry - you don't need to know ASL to understand the meaning of this sign.
#DeleteChrome
Hey, let's pick a minority group of people living with a misfortune through no fault of their own... what's something that will make it easy to play the sympathy card? Y'know, like it'll make everyone *else* look like the bad guys for opposing it? Wait... I got it... let's exploit the disabled!
Verizon has long been the poster child of corporate fuck-all-y'all evil, but I believe Satan just reserved a special place them in hell, probably as his right hand, to one day ascend to the fiery throne and command the world's evil, trident in hand.
Verizon making misleading (and shall we say "tone deaf") statements on behalf of deaf people, that deaf people don't agree with.
Disability? Hardly. The webpages are just bloated, fat, loaded with useless information and pretending they know better what you want than you do.
That's not disabled, that's the current standard of the western world.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not sure, but I'm fairly certain that making deaf/blind/etc pay more for specific fast lanes to ensure content that is easier for them to use MIGHT be against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I'm not sure Verizon was thinking this one through. The ADA has some serious teeth.
Its pointless, everyone knows its pointless....there is only one thing that matters, did the check clear?
I was already determined not to do business with them. Now I'm really glad I've had that policy. They're scum.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... why should the Democratic Party be the only ones who can exploit telegenic groups to further their interests?
Is this an admission by Verizon that normally their service is the slow lane and they will make everybody's service even slower to enable a small few to have a 'fast lane'.
Why don't they just put in the infrastructure needed for peoples internet to work like what they paid for already. Are they going to give refunds for not supplying the service they sold?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Oh I thought this new Web was all about useful, powerful new features, and that I should -never- complain that my webpage takes ages to load and slows down scrolling if there's more than a couple of pages worth of content, and takes five fucking seconds to react if I click on anything, despite my multiple gigahertz PC from the future that really should be able to handle something that looks barely any different from what we had fifteen years ago.... because progress.
So if groups with disabilities pay up they can have 'fast' service? Next up, every day net neutrality exists a kitten dies tactic?
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Before about 2009 they were an awesome Internet and cellular provider, but since then they have turned into one of those companies you despise handing money to. I don't know what happened to them around that time, but I wish whatever it was would be taken out to the back and shot.
Nuff said
This entire story is an insult to our intelligence.
Any ISP that throttles back our bandwidth is in effect selling a fraud. and deceptive trade practices.
I get charged x amount of $ for bandwidth, but I am only getting a trickle of that, and every day I start hammering their servers until the bandwidth is delivered. If it don't load quick enough, I simply hit the reload button (via batch file for me). I imagine some people are using the Low Orbit ION Cannon, or the High Orbit ION cannon.
So you complain that one thing has too much and the other too little? Maybe you just like to complain and change is bad.
I'm sure you can load up a VM with Netscape 4 and surf some webrings to find sites of primary just text with the occasional spinning skull/explosion gif.
Tossing net neutrality benefits the blind and deaf if you're blinded by greed and deaf to consumers.
Have gnu, will travel.
In 2014 alone, Internet service providers have spent close to $19 million lobbying on net neutrality
Imagine how much more fiber optic cable you could have deployed for $19000000.. and that's just this year and we're just barely halfway through the year!
Internet is a public utility, and a monopoly. ISPs need to be regulated accordingly, end of story.
With fast lanes, child porn can be moved to slow lanes. By not supporting this and Verizons position, you are supporting the continous expliotation of our children, possibly even your own children.
My god people, think of the children!!!!
Sorry, I'm rich I need it to die! It would not benefit you lowers, but it will work out great for me and all my billionaire friends. Raise pinky finger to mouth - Muahahaha!.... muahahaha.... muahahaha!
I don't get it, every time I have a dream of being rich and start sleep typing I turn dark side.
Looks like a big swing and a miss for Verizon.
They should have advocated on behalf of children instead
"Net neutrality is bad for children! Won't somebody think of the children?!?"
Because children can't fight back when their voice is co-opted.
Luckily blind, deaf and disabled adults are able to.
This is just plain despicable behaviour. The fraud and lies are expected from a mega-corporation, but deliberately exploiting the disabled for your own greed is low, even for Verizon.
Nope I don't agree with Net Neutrally to me this is breaking our constitutional rights using the Internet.. Hmm The Olama Administration is to blame for this idea???