quote:
i am inviting an open discussion. your discussion is: either you accept that the alternative to NN is the worst possible scneario, or you're wrong. that's it. no evidence. nothing. WPS or NN. /fin

I provided evidence, which you ignored. And you are not, in any way, inviting open discussion. You have made up your mind on the topic based on your political positions, and you absolutely refuse to think about the consequences of the end of net neutrality. You believe that government involvement is wrong in all cases, and you refuse to believe that regulation (done properly) will help consumers and actually foster a healthy free market. You are more interested in labeling me a liberal than you are in actually thinking about the problem and the solution I support.

quote:
while i am asking us to think about possibilities and *gasp* wait for evidence to see how it develops. you reject evidence

South Korean government regulates the owners of broadband lines, forces them to share their property (and get paid for it), and forces an open network. Result is the most advanced broadband in the world, with very competitive prices, extreme competition, and many choices for consumers.

Cable TV subscriber numbers have recently begun dropping, and that rate is accelerating. Now they are lobbying furiously to be able to discriminate against certain traffic on their networks. I wonder what they plan to do?

ISP lobbyists have already won limits on municipal broadband service in 20 states. They seem to be so excited about competition that will beat them with more consumer-friendly service!

But yeah, you're right, we should just sit back and watch. Maybe the ISPs will actually provide quality service at competitive prices, in an environment completely devoid of any competition. Because that's what businesses do.

quote:
you aren't interesting in a discussion or a process of critical thinking. you have decided people must agree with you, or they're wrong. this is the height of irony in a thread about innovation moving forward

I am open to discussing this with people who can provide a reasonable argument as to why giving a handful of corporations complete control over the content that consumers are able to access can possibly be a good thing. I haven't decided that people must agree with me or they're wrong. I have decided that your reasons for disagreeing with me have not been thought out, and are pathetically weak.