Verizon: Net Neutrality Hurts Disabled People
by Karl Bode 11:19AM Friday Jun 13 2014 Tipped by newview
Verizon's latest attempt to thwart real net neutrality protections? Claim that passing consumer protection laws that maintain an open Internet will hurt the disabled. According to Mother Jones
, that's the story that Verizon lobbyists are currently using in their support of Tom Wheeler's latest net neutrality proposal, which has been soundly criticized for trying to use shaky legal authority
to pass rules that don't adequately protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior.
The base of Verizon's logic appears to be that if you ban "fast lanes," you'd potentially ban services that could help the disabled, even though most people with a rudimentary grasp of the debate understand that's a red herring. Curiously, the deaf and disabled are surprised to learn that they're being used as a tool to fight net neutrality:
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. But groups representing disabled Americans, including the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, and the American Association of People with Disabilities are not advocating for this plan. Mark Perriello, the president and CEO of the AAPD, says that this is the "first time" he has heard "these specific talking points."
You can generally get a sense of how tough Tom Wheeler's latest effort at net neutrality rules
is by the fact that AT&T and Verizon actually like them. AT&T believes that Wheeler "has it right
" in his attempt to pass rules that don't do much of anything, and both companies particularly like the fact that the proposal can't even be bothered to cover wireless, where most of their anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior usually occurs
Wheeler and the FCC of course would argue that these rules aren't final yet, and there's still time to submit your comments
. However it's unclear what those comments will be worth in the face of an ocean of incumbent ISP misinformation and cash.
Regardless, it's the epitome of class when you try to use the deaf, blind and disabled to protect your revenues. "Nice Internet-powered pace maker yer grandma's got there," you can almost hear Verizon saying with a heavy Jersey accent. "It'd be a shame were somethin' bad to happen to it."
A reasonably valid argument
said by tfa :Instead of deploying actual broadband to the country and taking us out of 31st place, let's QoS what little we have, charge the disabled more (or maybe everyone) through some made up fee, and probably create a valid Americans with Disability Act discrimination case.
Similarly, smartphone-based medical devices that are popular with disabled people require fast Internet service. Telecom industry lobbyists have argued that, without a fast lane, disabled Americans could get stuck with subpar service as Internet traffic increases. AAPD's Perriello says this rationale could be genuine but seems "convenient."
If I were a telecom, I'd charge everyone for everything because you're all addicted to the product.
So if any major telecom wants to give a job doing basically Sith level policy work that would generate billions and leave the public smiling, give me a PM.
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
I'm pretty sure... ...current remote medical devices don't need much faster service, they need highly reliable service.
adequate service may not be available everywhere, just as the hospitals and medical facilities that back up the devices are not everywhere.
Sorry the wheel chair path to the top of Everest is also not a priority.
also sorry not everyone can do everything and we can't make everyone absolutely the same, some limitations are in fact limiting.
Re: I'm pretty sure... It would be fair if it was true. but I no longer work for anyone and my stocks are for the most part broad index mutual funds, the few individual shares I still hold are because my father and grandfather gave me a share of this or that. since I'll never sell them (going to my son) no point in a pump a dump for me.
I have how observed a number of things over the last few millennia, including to be sure you are observing through a clean lens.
Preexisting scratches and smudges can fool the eye and forgone conclusions can cloud the mind, your post is such an example.
| |ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
this is disgusting. The disabled and non-disabled deserve the same Internet. What a ridiculous presentation.
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party
Re: this is disgusting.
said by ArrayList:+1
The disabled and non-disabled deserve the same Internet. What a ridiculous presentation.
Wow, Verizon marketing staff really low-balling the neutrality hype during the Special Olympics. Coincidence, I think not.
Re: I think Verizon's copper network is more of a risk to the public....
said by Bengie25: Most of the world and even the US still has above ground utility wires because it costs 20% to put them up and they last 5 times as long, but are much simpler to replace if needed.
Wow, they still have above ground equipment and wires? Less likely to have issues with underground. That's what my ISP did.
A stinking pile of bullshit Wow, these guys have absolutely no shame. This is the most dishonest argument I've heard in a while, and I've heard plenty.
Verizons next horrible PR move.... From the office of the CEO.
Effective immediately Verizon will randomly each day place a basket full of puppies behind the tires of one our company vehicles. As long as there is no net neutrality, we will require each of our employees to check behind the vehicle for the puppies. However, if net neutrality gets reenacted, due to budgetary restrictions, we will no longer be able to afford to have our employees check behind the tires of our vehicles before departing on a service call or installation. So if net neutrality were to be reinstated, some puppies may inadvertently get harmed. Therefore animal welfare advocates and humane society members should join Verizon in our fight against net neutrality.
| |KearnstdSpace ElfPremium
Mullica Hill, NJ
Re: Net Neutrality Soap Opera
said by posthaste:Don't forget child pornography. Gotta throw that in too. Terrorists and Child Porn, The quick way to sell any steaming pile of BS to the Fox News watching masses!
This is the gift that keeps on giving.
Net neutrality also encourages money laundering, drug trafficking, wire fraud, and terrorism.
And reclassification under Title II is a national security issue!
Filan - Aurin Spellslinger - Pago - Team Legacy
what a crock as a low income disabled person. i find this disgusting. for one thing mediacom doesnt support lifeline for their phone service, the discount, not the equipment.
for another a data cap would hurt disabled folks, do they get an exemption? prime example, talking books for the blind are now digital downloads from BARD, those suckers are 100+MB's each, i had one novel nearly 1GB
as for wireless, blind? would like to have GPS mapping to help you find stores? guess what? no discount for data for you.
yes, i know, we should have to pay the same rates as every one else, im just pointing out what kind of stinking pile of crap this is. because if it where true, wheres all the so called special services provided by them or others that would be effected?
| |IowaCowboyIowa nativePremiumReviews:
Kiss my (you know what) As a person with a disability I find this far from the truth. Consumer protections have actually helped people with disabilities. There is a federal law called the Americans with Disabilities Act which is one of the biggest consumer protections out there for people with disabilities, whether it be mental, physical or temporary.
It requires that businesses (aka places of public accommodation) make there facilities and services accessible to people with disabilities. It does not require full accommodation but reasonable accommodation to be made for people with disabilities. It also requires facilities to be accessible to persons with mobility impairments. It also bans discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
This is totally unethical to use people with disabilities as AstroTurf for lobbying. People with disabilities appreciate the consumer protections granted to them, especially ones that remove barriers to independence or level of functioning. And Net Neutrality is important to them as many use the internet for video chat or IP relay because of communication disabilities such as speech/hearing impairments.
And I myself would like to see ISPs declared common carriers under Title II. And I think accommodating disabled users should be part of the universal service requirements (such as exempting IP replay or video chat for disabled from ISP caps).
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.