said by FFH5:
Just pointing out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If a study backed by AT&T money is AUTOMATICALLY suspect and distrusted, then why should I not suspect a study funded by companies that benefit from the idea that the internet has no bandwidth problems.
I knew you were gandering the goose and all that, but I repeat, facts have a known liberal bias.
the reason ATT is automatically suspect is:
a) they specifically fund astroturf "think tanks" to churn out "studies", op-ed/opinion pieces and other stuff to support industry positions,
b) it has been shown that many past ATT funded studies and articles have been, to put it kindly, pieces of trash
why not do as TScheisskopf suggests and argue on the facts? I can guess why, but I leave that for the reader to figure out.