Anne Golden, CEO of the Conference Board of Canada, in conversation with IT Business about the three reports recalled by her organization.
“The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby”
9 Comments
Recent Posts
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
O RLY?
“The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby”
O RLY?
What else I can say?
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.
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!
“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. 😉
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.
ill say it SUURRREEE
ya right , like we believe that we need another hole in our heads too.
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.
Rhetoric and Propaganda
“The reports were not intended to please any particular lobby”
“The throttle is to enhance customer experience”.
Gotcha.
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.