On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:32am, "Alan Jenkins"
> On 20/09/16 21:27, dpr...@reed.com wrote:
> I don't think the source is hard to identify. It's Sandvine press
> releases. That's what the periodic stories on Ars Technica are always
> derived from.
Press releases have almost no scientific verifiability and validity, and
Sandvine is self-interested in a biased outcome. (Sad that Ars Technica just
repeats these without questioning the numbers). In the past, I have actually
questioned Sandvine directly, and had friends in the measurement community have
asked for the raw data and methodology. The response: "trade secrecy" and
"customer privacy" prevent release of both raw data and methods.
If one is predisposed to "like" the result, one then repeats it as a "citation"
often omitting the actual source and quoting the place where it appeared (e.g.
Ars Technica said, rather than Sandvine said).
This is how propaganda works. It's exactly how propaganda works - I happen to
have propaganda textbooks from the late 1940's that have chapters about these
Of course, the best propaganda is the stuff that you can get engineers in the
field to promulgate based on their "gut feel".
Cerowrt-devel mailing list