| What a hilarious comment In the first place, Karl, boldface doesn't make a weak argument stronger, it simply underscores its weakness.
And in the second place, I'm not "tasked" with anything on net neutrality. I'm not paid to write about it and everything I say on the subject is my unedited personal opinion based on 25 years of network protocol invention and implementation.
So as much as you try to smear me (and apparently everyone who disagrees with your wild rants) as a telco shill, it's completely unwarranted.
It's a provable, measurable fact that broadband investment hasn't kept up with demand for the last ten years. And it's a priovable measurable fact that the broadband industry's leaders have said, consistently, that they can't invest too much capital in an uncertain environment. And it's a provable fact of economics that stability and uniformity are prerequisites to capital flow. And it's provable - as I noted - that Deloitte is aware of all these facts.
So your complaint seems to be with the most obvious claim that Deloitte makes: that investment is not keeping up with demand. In your mind there's no point in analyzing the reasons why it's not, because you think it is.
That's really an odd position, but if you use enough boldface type in expressing it, perhaps you can con yourself into believing it. But in any case it's far removed from your original and completely unfounded claim that Kerpen misused Deloitte. He clearly didn't, and your problems with the Deloitte projections don't show otherwise. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Richard Bennett, I've already deconstructed all your points and raised dozens you repeatedly ignore. Now you're just playing "is too" and "because I said so" patty cake. quote:
It's a provable, measurable fact that broadband investment hasn't kept up with demand for the last ten years.
Yes, all because of "regulatory uncertainty." I've heard it all before, and it doesn't get any more true the more it's repeated by myopic partisans, free market pay-per-stat think tank economists, Ayn Rand fans, guerrilla marketers, Ed Whitacre and/or current or former lobbyists (whichever one you are is irrelevant to me).
Any actual meaningful insight you may have to me seems obfuscated by your rabid zeal and analytical asymmetry (only pro-network neutrality analysis deserves hard-nosed scrutiny, but misleading anti-network neutrality arguments get a free pass). Among all your easily googled network neutrality diatribes Internet wide where you profess to have the utmost concern for facts, have you ever actually criticized a misleading network neutrality lobbying effort by an incumbent provider?
Fascinating insight, though. Really. |
|
|
|
| I love your style of debate, Broadband Karl. Whenever one of your claims is refuted, you pretend you never made it. Above you accused me of being "tasked" to slam neuts, and now you say you don't care if I'm "tasked" or not.
So why did you make the charge in the first place?
Oh, I get it, you just get off on insulting people, and you don't care if your insults are on-target or off.
You're a funny guy, Karl. |
|
| Thank you, Richard. I think you're handsome.
I'm so sorry insulting people so violates your ethos. |
|
| I've got nothing against a well-turned insult. I come from the early days of Usenet when a well-built flame was an object of admiration. I don't find your insults very stylish, however, hence my lack of admiration. Calling everyone who has an opinion a "telco shill" isn't my idea of creativity. |
|
1 edit | Funny, considering I never actually called you a "telco shill."
I will, however, try harder to insult you the next time I note you're regurgitating lobbyist talking points dolled up as actual insight. |
|
