google weighs in on bell throttling

[Jamon Camisso]

JoeHill wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote: 
> 
>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/07/tech-crtc.html
> 
> This bit raised my eyebrows:
> 
> Rogers, which also slows peer-to-peer applications, disputed claims by CAIP
> that such throttling affects services such as voice over internet protocol
> (VoIP) and virtual private networks (VPN).
> 
> "This equipment, therefore, does not impact any other traffic such as VoIP, VPN
> and other online streaming applications because their signatures are
> different," wrote Ken Engelhart, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs
> for Rogers. "There is therefore no reason why VPN or other encrypted traffic
> would be affected."
> 
> Anyone on Rogers network care to comment on this?
>  

I'm not with Rogers, but the man is a complete tool based on that 
statement alone. I don't care how good Engelhart is at inductive logic, 
he's a dolt who, as a VP, should know to just come out with a statement 
of fact that yes or no, the equipment does or does not affect other 
encrypted traffic.

Instead he resorts to words/phrases like "Therefore, because, therefore, 
no reason why" that all substantially undermine his credibility. A 
simple declarative "Our equipment filters based on x encryption 
signature but not y/z signatures" would have made him sound like much 
less of a cagey/hedging ass and left no room for speculation. Maybe he 
should have checked facts with the CIO and network admins before opening 
his mouth.

Good riddance.

Jamon
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists