Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

Blog Archive

SMTWTFS
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829

"The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby"

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday May 29, 2009
Anne Golden, CEO of the Conference Board of Canada, in conversation with IT Business about the three reports recalled by her organization.
Comments (9)add comment

Anon Name said:

O RLY?
"The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby"

O RLY?

What else I can say?
May 29, 2009

Geof said:

Technically, since there are multiple lobbies...
If there are several lobbies asking for the same thing, perhaps she could manage to say with a straight face that the report was not written to please any particular one of them.
May 30, 2009

CK MOntreal said:

Change the name to the Conderence Board of USA
They should be ashamed to call themselves Canadian!!!
Shame on you Anne Golden. Shame on you! The proper thing to do is resign!
May 30, 2009

crade said:

...
"The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby"

Well, it's a good thing she cleared that up! I was worried about this, now she has set me at ease. ;)
May 30, 2009

Wayne said:

The Problem appears international

I caught a post by Glyn Moody:

http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-copycats-report-has-copycat-problem.html

It looks like similar things are happening in England.
May 31, 2009

SARKOZY SAYS 1$ FER YOU said:

ill say it SUURRREEE
ya right , like we believe that we need another hole in our heads too.
May 31, 2009

Anon said:

Of course they were written to please the lobby groups.
At least one of the reports was funded by more than one of these lobby groups. If the CBoC doesn't produce reports that they like, that source of funding will dry up.
June 01, 2009

oh I see said:

Rhetoric and Propaganda
"The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby"

"The throttle is to enhance customer experience".

Gotcha.
June 01, 2009

Anon said:

The problem with throttling
is that there is a maximum throughput that can be supplied... it is the bandwidth of the slowest part of the middle. The network naturally throttles itself. For instance, if I have a 256 kbps link to my provider, I can't put more than that load on the network as a whole. Given that most network traffic is of a burst nature (yes, even torrents), over time this should average itself out. Even strictly email access can cause this same congestion... it gets worse web surfing and you start to see all of the advertisements and cookies being pushed around.

I have no problem with a monthly download cap (i.e. 6 GBytes per month). In general, I can control what I download. I don't say bandwidth cap because bandwidth is a rate, not a quantity... so, if they want to give me a bandwidth cap of 256 kbps, then fine, but don't restrict what I can do with it. A download cap implies an average bandwidth... this is restricted by the connection speed (or bandwidth).

But this is getting off topic.
June 02, 2009

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: