Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
And, who knows, maybe also stop drug use, illiteracy, stop global warming and fix the infrastructure.
It is fascinating what utterly despicable failed human beings make it to the top in the west today. Having people with zero honor and zero personal morals in charge used to be a privilege of the developing world. Not anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Telecom carriers that spend obscene amounts of cash on lobbyists and PACs to help disabled people and the elderly. That's all they want. Really.
Sounds. legit.
"killing net neutrality will help disabled people"
says verizon, comcast, fcc, etc
"killing net neutrality will disable people."
says vice, google, facebook, etc
don't trust either.
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.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
If you really believe that the US without NN will see more competition amongst carriers, you are bound for a bad surprise. Quite the opposite is to be expected: For a sizeable part of all customers, who today already have basically not more options than to contract with one locally available carrier to get (at least) the "whole Internet" experience, the number of options will decrease from 1 to zero - because especially where there are not multiple carriers already, there is no reason why the existing carrier should not cripple Internet connectivity to whatever suits him best in order to sell his own "premium" services.
And the number of "new carriers" who get into this business "because there is no more obligation to be network-neutral" will amount to exactly zero.
Your comment is NOTHING but blatantly false statements. the NN regulations didn't require ANY paperwork and they only covered transport and source discrimination and not only that but they WAIVED even that if your company served less than 100K customers.
Stop lying.
>> Oh, Trump voters ......does this one bother you ?
Yes but not half as much as a Hillary government would have.
Sorry, but you're already living the "dream". This can't extend to Australia because Australia doesn't have net neutrality laws to begin with.
I wonder who is paying him under the table?
Nobody is being paid under the table. That is not how the system works. The political donations by the telecoms to Republican politicians are perfectly legal and done openly ... as are the media industry's donations to the Democrats.
FYI, I'm in Australia.
That explains your misunderstanding. In most countries corruption is illegal. In America, it is not.
Artificial scarcity is the core motivation behind the Network Neutrality repeal. They are about to roll out 5G technologies with 10gbs download speeds which is more bandwidth than most everyone will need. With cable cutters and plunging market prices the telecoms are in a panic and thus they are calling on their inside man to protect their interests. He is looking forward to his future “Pai Day” for his loyal service.
If network prioritization were a true problem then senders and receivers, the customers, should have full control of prioritization using existing Quality of Service (QoS) network features. However by giving telecoms unabated control of prioritization they can distort traffic and resume charging premiums for video and voice.
The FCC chairman has been unequivocally clear in is objectives; increased network investment (read profit) for the ILECs and absolute hands off regulation until there is a complete “market failure” (read unavoidable regulation due to universal outrage over telcom censorship and exorbitant prices).
Finally his talking point about regulatory burden on telcom technology is a joke. It is impossible for telcoms to transfer data beyond the speed of light so the only thing they can do is slow it down or block it. Providing financial incentives to enact artificial scarcity, censorship, and surveillance is the complete opposite of promoting “Free Market” ideologies.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
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.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Just because a network is NN by default doesn't mean you can't throttle ALL videos to ensure quality of service.
Throttling all videos isNet neutral, as long as the isp doesn't treat their own content differently.
Pretty much anything... just not Hillary. Drain the swamp? Fuck it, don't care anymore. Tax breaks for the middle class... fuck it, just no Hillary. Child molesters in Congress... fuck it, as long as it ain't Hillary. Emails!!! Grab 'em by the pussy! WW3? Who cares... just not Hillary.
Beware of the Leopard.
Here it is: http://www.gocomics.com/pearls...
Well, of course you numpty. There was no need for the term "Net Neutrality" until what had been the status quo was under attack from telecoms.
But the concept of "net neutrality" goes back to before there was even an internet. Since you seem to be uninformed on this issue, let me give you some information, with citations you can follow if you want to learn more about this matter in-depth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–_early_2000s
I will expect you to read this before replying. Go on, I'm waiting.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Pai doesn't care. All he has to do to get a cushy job later on is to say,"Well, we tried" to the telecom industry. If they get even a few bucks more out of this they'll hire him away into executive heaven after he leaves/is ousted. He's showing his loyalty to the bitter end and HE KNOWS this will never, ever get through. It's going to get sued into the turf 5 seconds after being enacted, and will probably die a long slow death in court.
Does ANYONE remember the Bushie administration? The same tactics were used! Do all kinds of things that will never work, but do enough of them and maybe a few will stick. When government fails to yield any benefit, turn around and tell your base,"Government doesn't work!" even though they've been intentionally obstructing the functioning of government and blame it on the next guy. Rinse and repeat!
-
The reason they want to give FTC authority is precisely because the FTC has no teeth. The entire point of this is because Steve Bannon and other anti-government types managed to get Trump to approve their anti-government wishlist for political appointees. We've got an education secretary that doesn't believe in public schools, a secretary of state that has laid off enough diplomats that we have no more diplomatic power, a secretary of the treasury who wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and other safeguards added after the last financial crisis, and so forth. It is no wonder that the chair of the FCC is intent at shredding regulations.
Whether this is to get a big under-the-table bonus from the giant corporations, or because they're genuinely intent on destroying government in order to "rebuild" it, they are most certainly not acting in the best interests of the citizens.
Then your view of reality is severely distorted.
Absolute statements are never true
Even if they have no plans to offer service in some regions, they still don't want anyone else doing so either. Some state legislatures have forbidden municipal broadband at the request of giant telecoms.
But they need not do it by creating fast lanes and slow lanes. They need not do anything like deep packet inspection. Simple fair queuing will take care of it.
In other words, throttling to contracted bandwidth can be done in a neutral manner just fine.
In most countries corruption is illegal. In America, it is not.
Ha ha, no. In America it just isn't corruption if it isn't explicitly bribery with a clear quid pro quo agreement between the two parties. In America we have our own definitions for lots of words, some people call that "American exceptionalism."
it is fine, as the highly controversial Citizens United ruling said in 2010, for wealthy campaign contributors to expect that their dollars will buy “ingratiation or access” in governor’s mansions and statehouses
Yes but not half as much as a Hillary government would have.
Well, indeed, but there's nothing Trump could do that would make you dislike him.
Arpaio was conviced for violating the actual constitution and Trump pardoned him.
I look forward to rationalizing how forcing consitutional violations to go unpunished is good for America and good for the constitution.
Expected response: [clutches pearls Oh... but Hillary!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I love how we can just openly call for the assassination of public officials we don't like, and get modded up for it. Kill those with whom we disagree! It's OK when we do it!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"Paid prioritization" isn't the problem, it's the "unpaid deprioritization" that worries us.
No sig today...