FCC Chair Ajit Pai Falsely Claims Killing Net Neutrality Will Help Sick and Disabled People (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: One popular claim by the telecom sector is that net neutrality rules are somehow preventing people who are sick or disabled from gaining access to essential medical services they need to survive. Verizon, for example, has been trying to argue since at least 2014 that the FCC's net neutrality rules' ban on paid prioritization (which prevents ISPs from letting deep-pocketed content companies buy their way to a distinct network performance advantage over smaller competitors) harms the hearing impaired. That's much to the chagrin of groups that actually represent those constituents, who have consistently and repeatedly stated that this claim simply isn't true. Comcast lobbyists have also repeated this patently-false claim in their attempt to lift the FCC ban on unfair paid prioritization deals.

The claim that net neutrality rules hurt the sick also popped up in a recent facts-optional fact sheet the agency has been circulating to try and justify the agency's Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" net neutrality repeal. In the FCC's current rules, the FCC was careful to distinguish between "Broadband Internet Access Services (BIAS)," which is general internet traffic like browsing, e-mail or app data and "Non-BIAS data services," which are often given prioritized, isolated capacity to ensure lower latency, better speed, and greater reliability. VoIP services, pacemakers, energy meters and all telemedicine applications fall under this category and are exempt from the rules. Despite the fact that the FCC's net neutrality rules clearly exempt medical services from the ban on uncompetitive paid prioritization, FCC boss Ajit Pai has consistently tried to claim otherwise. He did so again last week during a speech in which he attempted to defend his agency from the massive backlash to its assault on net neutrality. "By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization -- such as latency-sensitive telemedicine," Pai said. "By replacing an outright ban with a robust transparency requirement and FTC-led consumer protection, we will enable these services to come into being and help seniors."

Comments

Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[TigerPlish]

So how does The People fight this? No one reads /.

No one. Numbers-wise, I mean. /. is not read by enough people to truly spark Fake (or Genuine) Internet Outrage.

How come this isn't running front page on the major Muggle press?

Yeah. What they don' know won't hurt them.

But sure as fuck it'll hurt us.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[El Cubano]

There has been tons of outrage. It's falling on deaf ears.
This is the era of Trump. Public opinion doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter.
It's an agenda.

I agree. It is eerily reminiscent of the era of Obama. I remember things like "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and "the average American family will save $2500 per year in healthcare costs" and "you will have more and better choices for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act" and "we will cover more people with better coverage and it will cost less".

It turns out that every single one of those things was false, that millions of Americans were outraged at the effort to have government take over healthcare and that outrage fell on deaf ears. Remember the legislative chicanery to get the ACA rammed through the Senate before Senator Ted Kennedy's replacement, Republican Scott Brown, could be seated?

Sheesh. And liberals are upset when the Republicans do things along party lines without Democratic support.

The only hope is that it will be reversed, as soon as possible.

The same can be said of the Affordable Care Act, which is decidedly unaffordable for practically every American it affects.

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

>> Oh, Trump voters ......does this one bother you ?

Yes but not half as much as a Hillary government would have.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Jason Levine]

There was a Web Comic I saw once, which sadly I lost the link for, where a lobbyist comes into a Congressman's office and asks to donate some money in order to pass a bill. Horrified, the Congressman says that's not how he operates and for the lobbyist to come back in and try again. This time, the lobbyist says he's really concerned about some issue and wants a bill passed. Also, in a completely unrelated matter, he wants to make a big donation to the Congressman. This time the Congressman is satisfied because it's not bribery this time. (I really wish I could find that web comic.)