Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Deaf Advocacy Groups To Verizon: Don't Kill Net Neutrality On Our Behalf

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the or-on-your-behalf dept.

Verizon 76

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."

cancel ×

76 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can you hear me now? (4, Funny)

Mal-2 (675116) | about 2 months ago | (#47512639)

We don't give a shit.

(This should have been the Verizon ad all along.)

Re:Can you hear me now? (2)

msauve (701917) | about 2 months ago | (#47512823)

Ernestine [jt.org] , is that you?

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | about 2 months ago | (#47513229)

Ernestine [jt.org] , is that you?

Maybe the perfect person to point out this absurdity to Congress would be that Technician in background.....Al Franken [senate.gov] . Too bad he hasn't gone on to a position of any prominence.

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 months ago | (#47513271)

Verizon - Robbing the deaf, blind.

Re:Can you hear me now? (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47513283)

That's not fair. I really don't feel like defending Verizon, but I am absolutely certain they don't discriminate against the deaf and blind. They rob everyone without prejudice.

Re:Can you hear me now? (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 months ago | (#47514265)

Yeah, but the blind never saw it coming and the deaf just don't want to hear about it.

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 months ago | (#47515117)

Think we need a statue of 3 monkeys here.

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

LduN (3754243) | about 2 months ago | (#47517455)

Yeah, but the blind never saw it coming and the deaf just don't want to hear about it.

Forgot about how the mutes don't seem to be talkin about it at all...

Re:Can you hear me now? (2)

ketomax (2859503) | about 2 months ago | (#47513667)

What will they say next? That it benefits the dead?

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 months ago | (#47514269)

There's plenty of politicians who will do whatever it takes to benefit the dead. For some of them, it's their core voter group.

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | about 2 months ago | (#47516161)

Ernestine [jt.org] , is that you?

Maybe the perfect person to point out this absurdity to Congress would be that Technician in background.....Al Franken [senate.gov] . Too bad he hasn't gone on to a position of any prominence.

a Senator who might actually do good for the general public for once and not solely for a limited cadre of corporations? no, there's no way someone like that won't make it far in DC!

Re:Can you hear me now? (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 months ago | (#47513037)

Verizon: "You can't hear us, and we don't listen to you."

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 months ago | (#47514859)

Obviously the deaf are just not listening.

What about the disability of the World Wide Web? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512669)

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.

Re:What about the disability of the World Wide Web (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47513291)

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.

Re:What about the disability of the World Wide Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47514253)

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.

Re:What about the disability of the World Wide Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47515407)

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.

Closed Captioning (5, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 months ago | (#47512673)

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.

Re:Closed Captioning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512707)

Closed captioning should be at most a few Kb/s, and that is if there is a lot of text formatting data coming through as well. Compared to the multi-mb data that is encoded 720p video, nobody should have to sacrifice speed in other areas to get closes captioning.
Heck, you could probably CC with a 300 baud modem.

Re:Closed Captioning (4, Informative)

CaptQuark (2706165) | about 2 months ago | (#47513499)

Close captioning doesn't take any bandwidth. Closed Captioning is encoded within line 21 of overscan information within an analog screen page. With 30 frames per second, that gives enough plenty of information with no added bandwidth. Digital TV encodes the information within the digital stream itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Closed Captioning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47513887)

While that is true for a tipical Analogue/Digital TV stream, for a video file (as in movie.avi) it is normally kept separate.
But subtitle/CC files for a typical 90-minute movie are around 10kb which is negligible even with a dialup modem, even more nowadays with DSL, fiber and such. Heck, the movie you're watching is hundred of thousands times larger.

Saying that "closed captioning uses up badnwith" is idiotic nowadays. Ads take up much more bandwith and I don't see any company trying to provide me premium access to ads so I can load them faster.

Re:Closed Captioning (1)

Kasar (838340) | about 2 months ago | (#47513973)

Sounds like they want to charge a premium rate for closed captioning, but I'm not sure how they could spin that as being a good thing.

Stay classy, big V. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47512679)

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?

Re:Stay classy, big V. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512781)

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?

Not that I agree with non-net-neutrality, but things I've heard from the debate were things like heart surgery telecommunications and financial market operations.

Re:Stay classy, big V. (1)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about 2 months ago | (#47512859)

Tele-surgery is typically done from hospital to hospital, which would most likely use a network link not provided by Verizon.

Re:Stay classy, big V. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47513075)

Verizon does do dedicated lines of various flavors, if you pay them enough; but that's more or less irrelevant to the duel over how finely commodity ISP customers can be diced up and double billed. Nor could one seriously imagine even the most grandiose promises of fast-lanes actually making life-critical applications over cheapy links seem like a good idea.

Re:Stay classy, big V. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47513187)

"...this is pretty incoherent even by the low standards of the genre."

They don't care about well reasoned logic. Just getting a politicians vote. There's a reason it's an old strategy that we still see today: it works.

Re:Stay classy, big V. (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47514011)

*nods* all they need is plausible rationalization, just enough for politicians to be able to claim, even if only to themselves, that they are doing it for just reasons.

Re:Stay classy, big V. (4, Funny)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 2 months ago | (#47514293)

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?".

When people can't hear well youtube, netflix, etc. have to send more data for the sound to make it louder. Similarly, people with vision problems get a really really huge movie to watch, meaning they need even more data (measured in bites) than the deaf folks. Someone like Helen Keller would need a dedicated OC-48 - possibly even an OC-49 or something like that - to handle her needs.

I tell you, Verizon's great concern for the handicapped folks just brings a tear to my eye and makes me want to use their services all the more, especially with that fast lane for handicapped people. They probably even get their own parking spot at Verizon headquarters, one for deaf drivers and one for blind drivers.

Pretty low (5, Insightful)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 2 months ago | (#47512689)

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!

Re:Pretty low (5, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 months ago | (#47512775)

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!

Tomorrow Verizon will claim that orphans, puppies, and disabled war veterans will be harmed by net neutrality. And if the net is neutral, THE TERRORISTS WIN!

Re:Pretty low (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47513245)

Only a monster would vote against orphans, puppies, veterans, and disabled people. Go Verizon!!

Re:Pretty low (1)

camg188 (932324) | about 2 months ago | (#47513475)

You forgot "Think of the kids"

Re:Pretty low (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47514379)

You think Verizon will say that a net neutrality will make downloading child porn as easy as downloading other porn? And that the network should not be neutral for child porn?

Re:Pretty low (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 2 months ago | (#47515209)

. 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.

But how would they know?

Go deaf dudes!

Hear, hear! <-- What I actually wrote before I figured out it was ironic, which would be fine, and probably insensitive, which is not. But I will echo your sentiment: Go dead dudes!

If you're disabled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512691)

you can pay more for better service! Verizon, we're here to help.

Thanks Verizon, now I know... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512795)

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.

White-washing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512715)

This is a tactic they've been using for a while. [vice.com]

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.

Hm. (4, Interesting)

aevan (903814) | about 2 months ago | (#47512731)

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]

Re:Hm. (1)

frostfreek (647009) | about 2 months ago | (#47514689)

Verizon is not ransoming special groups.

No, this is Racketeering [wikipedia.org] if I've ever seen it!

Re:Hm. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47515253)

They pull no punches on that one. Regarding video chat - which is useful for communicating using ASL:

Accordingly, we are concerned about the Commission’s proposal to permit
broadband providers to degrade applications to a “minimum level of access” in lieu of a
full-throated no-blocking rule. A “minimum level of access” rule would open the door to
a two-tiered Internet, placing users who are deaf or hard of hearing that depend on
performance-intensive video and other applications to communicate at the mercy of their
broadband providers’ willingness to negotiate with the users’ application providers of
choice—and the ability of those providers to pay for sufficient access. This ability to pay is
especially in doubt for niche providers that serve primarily the market of people with
disabilities and have little mainstream market penetration, such as relay service providers,
remote interpreting services, and other innovative accessibility services. To ensure access
for both users who are deaf or hard of hearing and application providers on equal terms,
the Commission should strongly consider its alternative approach of banning priority
arrangements.15

wtf (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 2 months ago | (#47512825)

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.
 

I'm deaf... (5, Informative)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 months ago | (#47512841)

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.

Re:I'm deaf... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47513153)

They probably have some amount of TRS stuff quietly rotting in a back room somewhere; but the idea that they actually care about those services seems implausible at best.

That's some fake ass altruism right there (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512843)

Aww, poor little disabled you. Sure we'll help you out.
You get to pay extra!
Yes, yes, you're quite welcome.

Stupid world.

Think of the children! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512865)

"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 this. (1)

LordKaT (619540) | about 2 months ago | (#47512949)

There is really only one answer to Verizon. They need to be broken up. Is the government wont do it, we should do it.

Considering Republicans never listen.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47513091)

Are they considered deaf?

Dear Verizon, My Penis Is Not For U To Sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47513113)

Regards, George Washington.

Dear Verizon (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 months ago | (#47513177)

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.

Re:Dear Verizon (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47514591)

We'd pick you up but there's already four people in the car.

Re:Dear Verizon (1)

antdude (79039) | about 2 months ago | (#47517757)

One line ASCII art: ..!..

A special kind of evil (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 2 months ago | (#47513215)

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.

Oh, the delicious irony (1)

ZipK (1051658) | about 2 months ago | (#47513227)

Verizon making misleading (and shall we say "tone deaf") statements on behalf of deaf people, that deaf people don't agree with.

Against the ADA? (5, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | about 2 months ago | (#47513339)

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.

Re:Against the ADA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47514021)

What we really need is to get the NRA on side.

Re:Against the ADA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47515111)

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.

This is pretty SOP for negotiating with congress. Next they will cut a deal where "deaf channels" are provided "for free" in exchange for being able to charge everyone else extra for non-crippled services. The fact that the deaf do not want this, that it wouldn't be needed if Net Neutrality were real, and that it will take significant investment to actually use any such "free" resources will be unreported by the major news media. Instead we get headlines trumpeting the goodness of our corporate-owned overlords (AKA congress), how deeply they care for the poor benighted handicapped of this nation, because they "forced" Verizon to comply with the ADA.

all these words (2)

letherial (1302031) | about 2 months ago | (#47513345)

Its pointless, everyone knows its pointless....there is only one thing that matters, did the check clear?

Slimy (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 months ago | (#47513419)

I was already determined not to do business with them. Now I'm really glad I've had that policy. They're scum.

Re:Slimy (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 2 months ago | (#47514297)

I was already determined not to do business with them. Now I'm really glad I've had that policy. They're scum.

Hey, no offense intended but did you just figure that out now?

Ah, well ... (0)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 2 months ago | (#47514039)

... why should the Democratic Party be the only ones who can exploit telegenic groups to further their interests?

So, Verizons normal service is the slow lane? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47514085)

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?

Re:So, Verizons normal service is the slow lane? (1)

dissy (172727) | about 2 months ago | (#47514743)

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?

No no, it's all a matter of internal accounts you see.

The money used to purchase bandwidth throttling equipment was taken from the subscriber payments account, so you are only due a refund if they failed to slow your connection to a standstill.

The money to upgrade infrastructure was taken from us all by force by convincing the government to tax us each and every year for the past decade and a half, and the government isn't likely to ask for a refund from their overlords, nor would we see it refunded to us even if they did.

The more you know, epic half battles, all of that.

Wow. (2)

Roskolnikov (68772) | about 2 months ago | (#47514487)

So if groups with disabilities pay up they can have 'fast' service? Next up, every day net neutrality exists a kitten dies tactic?

What Happened to Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47514677)

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.

Google Verizon disability treatment (1)

Bruha (412869) | about 2 months ago | (#47514723)

Nuff said

BULL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47515203)

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.

Benefits the Blind and Deaf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47515813)

Tossing net neutrality benefits the blind and deaf if you're blinded by greed and deaf to consumers.

At least ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 months ago | (#47515921)

... if we kill it, we won't have to use a silencer.

money well spent is well spent (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 2 months ago | (#47516467)

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.

My god people, think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47516591)

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!!!!

Kill net neutrality! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47516979)

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.

Swing and a miss.... (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about 2 months ago | (#47517151)

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?!?"

This is why Think of the Children is so effective. (1)

Mantle (104724) | about 2 months ago | (#47517291)


Because children can't fight back when their voice is co-opted.

Luckily blind, deaf and disabled adults are able to.

Verizon CEO should be publically horse-whipped (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47527725)

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.

This is wrong but it's also taking your rights awa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47532789)

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???

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>