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.
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.
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]
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.
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
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.