Bio not provided
The residents of any state in their cities and towns ought to have the legal right to bond for public broadband infrastructure building by approval of the voters registered to vote in those same cities and towns. Last-mile networks are local networks and not state-wide networks where the state itself might have a legitimate interest. States should have no interest in what cities and towns bond for with voter approval. Note that I'm not referring to the delivery of Internet services by cities and towns, just the broadband network building itself. Cities and towns can build their local broadband network and decide to lease their network to a single provider or operate it as an "open access network" by inviting multiple providers to pay for access to their network. Many small cities and towns have only a single provider, who is under no motivation to improve service or they have no provider at all for local broadband services. Public ownership of the local network relieves private corporations of having to build the local network in order to serve it. Public ownership of the local network also creates the opportunity for real service provider competition, if the network is operated as an open access network. Most cities and towns would not be competent themselves to maintain and monitor their network, which is why those services are typically contracted to third parties who may be private corporations whose business is to provide such services. The ISPs providing Internet service would still have to co-locate their equipment in facilities provided by the city or town. There are other models for bringing broadband Internet service to cities and towns that have been bypassed by private corporations. It should be the right of residents in every city and town in every state to determine what will work best for them, without the political interference of state legislators who are heavily influenced by ALEC in their policy positions, and by the incessant lobbying of the cable and telco oligopoly operating in their state, who also contribute to the election campaigns of these same state legislators.
4 days, 14 hours ago on Conversation @ http://www.govtech.com/network/Tennessee-Lawmakers-Halt-Debate-on-Broadband-Expansion.html
Well, this busines of "sharing" cybersecurity information with the government should be approached with skepticism and only under certain conditions should it even move forward. The government is in a untrustworthy position thanks to Mr. Snowden's release of incriminating documents of NSA abuses. Some of the corporations in the meeting with President Obama have been victims of NSA abuses that included tapping into their networks and tampering with the integrity of their products. Plus, we still have widespread data collection on all Americans by the NSA, which programs are constitutiionally questionable and very likely illegal as they violate the 4th Amendment. Recently, the FBI was attempting to pressure American corporations into "dumbing down" the encryption used in their consumer electronic devices like smartphones. If the NSA programs for collecting data on all Americans are stopped and if there is no attempt to weaken the use of encryption, then maybe the government would have something to bring to the table before it tries to engage with these businesses in a collaborative effort. Frankly, the government isn't likely offer these assurances and if that is the case, the corporations should just say no to the government and continue their strong support for the privacy rights of their customers.
2 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.govtech.com/security/Cybersecurity-Summit-Obama-Apple-CEO-Announce-Private-Public-Integration.html
Well, how bad was Azure's storage performance that it required an update that appears to have been mistakenly applied to multiple regions at once? One issue is the actual fix, which appears not to have been fully tested. Another issue is the procedure for deploying the fix, which appears to have been done improperly or not according to procedure. The result is another "black eye" for Microsoft Azure. AWS has been down this road too. When operating a service at web-scale, there is a huge downside if a mistake or error can bring down the service. In theory, the service should be architected to contain a failure condition by having sufficient check-points or "safety valves" set to halt a widespread service outage. The post mortem after one of these outages usually results in revised procedures or improvements in "fail-safe" mechanisms. Running a service at web-scale is still challenging because it has not been done for a very long time. AWS has been at it for 8 years and Microsoft has been at it for about 5 years. That said, routine procedures, like pushing out updates, should never bring the service down. Given Mr. Zander's comments about this particular Azure outage, the architecture of the service should be analyzed and improved to prevent similar events. Apologies do not fix anything.
5 months ago on Azure Outage
Makes sense to me. I've advocated for years that unless you can agree on a definition of cloud computing your conversation can get confusing and unproductive. The NIST definition of cloud computing is a good starting place since it is vendor neutral and NIST is a respected organization. Coming up with an easy to remember 5-3-2 makes it easy to recall the elements of the NIST definition. So, if you ever find yourself speaking with someone who either thinks you can define cloud computing anyway you want or there is no definition of cloud computing, just repeat 5-3-2 and make them go away.
2 years ago on The 5-3-2 Principle Of Cloud Computing: An Easier Approach
Interesting to see that Google has yet to create their own platform and get that ecosystem thing working for them. With competitors like Amazon, Oracle, Microsoft and Salesforce.com all using platforms to build their developer ecosystems, it was shocking to see the lack of appreciation for creating a platform at Google that any 3rd party developer can plug into. Well, I guess if search is your business, maybe the idea of creating a platform for everything to plug into might not have seemed obvious, but shouldn't we have expected more from a company that was built on questioning the status quo? Hey, aren't the smartest "guys" out there working at Google?<g>
3 years, 6 months ago on Google Engineer Accidently Shares His Internal Memo About Google + Platform