Tom I've read a lot about net neutrality over the past couple weeks and I haven't seen anyone take such a different angle on it. So thanks for that. Do you think that anyone but you has considered the impact on VPNs?
It's possible that they've not considered it, Sara. The problem is that the concept of "Net neutrality" is overloaded by Internet service emotion, even though the actual impact of the FCC's order may well have been much broader and even much different. When the order was issued, I pointed out that "intra-cloud" communications was exempt, for example, which could encourage providers to move the cloud on-ramp closer to the user to move more of the service out of the range of neutrality. That was also not talked about much, but it was there.
@Tom Another great point: ""intra-cloud" communications was exempt, for example, which could encourage providers to move the cloud on-ramp closer to the user to move more of the service out of the range of neutrality." It sounds like another example of how IT and the legal department need to stay friends.
It probably goes deeper than that, Sara. For example, if you bought a cloud service from a provider who had an on-ramp in each city and a couple regional cloud data centers, the portion of the connection between the place you first touched the cloud in that metro on-ramp and the cloud data centers would be immune from neutrality so you could be sold QoS there even if the neutrality order were upheld. The cloud is like a CDN, which by the way is also exempt. Thus, neutrality policy would increase the value of "big-provider" clouds who could afford local on-ramps.
Also, to anyone who isn't entirely clear on what net neutrality even is, the best explanation I've seen is over at CNET. Good stuff: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57617242-94/why-you-should-care-about-net-neutrality-faq/
It has plusses and minuses. One notable problem is the implication that the striking down of neutrality would open the door for consumers paying for gold, silver, and bronze Internet. That, in fact, was specifically allowed by the order so nothing changes there. The difference is that the order implied that the content provider could not pay for premium handling, only the consumer could.
@Tom Well the thing that worries me to most about bronze, silver, and gold Internet, as you put it, is that to get decent security you may need to buy the "gold" standard. I wonder if they'd add new rules mandating some fundamental security be part of all options
I think we can assume that security, which has always been a "feature" available with some services, will increasingly become an architected part of premium online models. SDN and the Internet may intersect there!
interesting point... but I think we gonna see some changes with security... as few days ago I attended seminar in Toronto... where speaker keep telling about new concept... security pay as you go... basically for Co. who could afford it ...
Thanks for this coverage, Tom. It's nice to get the general perspective that something good can come from this. Nothing is black and white, and you would think that after a while we would get used to that, but it seems that we don't - certainly, the outcry on the internet has not been hesistant to label this one as close to 'all black' as possible. Whether we're talking about one specific issue or another, your point is very well-taken; the order isn't a single sheet of paper that says 'ruin net neutrality' stamped ''approved'' with cheesy red ink. It's a complex issue with many subsections to consider.
Net neutrality notwithstanding, we're moving towards a time of increasing complexity and interconnectivity for the internet - as you point out, VPNs and various cloud interactions are just two issues that shift us pretty far from the 'customer pays a flat rate and receives a static service' model anyway. It's up to us to decide what that means as an industry and as a culture - everyone from enterprises down to consumers ought to make their voice heard.
A very good point, Zerox203. The fact is that "the Internet" needs to evolve as a network and not just as a set of OTT services. We need QoS end to end, which means we need settlement among ISPs rather than Bill-and-Keep. We need to accept that traffic growth equals cost growth for operators or we'll drive down investment in infrastructure. We need to be thinking about how new missions will drive new services. I said from the first that the Neutrality Order was highly flawed, but I also agree that killing it opens some risks that may have to be addressed down the line. What we can't do is try to impose an unreasonable business structure on the industry, or we'll kill what we're trying to protect.
Enterprise Efficiency is looking for engaged readers to moderate the message boards on this site. Engage in high-IQ conversations with IT industry leaders; earn kudos and perks. Interested? E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dell's Efficiency Modeling Tool The major problem facing the CIO is how to measure the effectiveness of the IT department. Learn how Dell’s Efficiency Modeling Tool gives the CIO two clear, powerful numbers: Efficiency Quotient and Impact Quotient. These numbers can be transforma¬tive not only to the department, but to the entire enterprise. Read the full report
Now that TGen has broken new ground in genomic research by using Dell's storage, cloud, and high-performance computing solutions, the company discusses what will come next for it and for personalized medicine.
The Translational Genomics Research Institute wanted to save lives, but its efforts were hobbled by immense computing challenges related to collecting, processing, sharing, and storing enormous amounts of data.
Office and personal productivity tools come in a first-class and coach flavor set, but what makes the difference is primarily little things that most users won't encounter. What's the big issue in using something other than Office, and can you get around it?
We really don't want an "Internet of Everything" but even building an Internet of Everythinguseful means setting some ground rules to insure there's value in the process and that costs and risks are minimized.
Google's Chrome OS has a lot of potential value and a lot of recent press, but it still needs something to make it more than a thin client. It needs cloud integration, it needs extended APIs via web services, and it needs to suck it up and support a hard drive.
On a recent African trip I saw examples of the value of the cloud in developing nations, for educational and community development programs. We could build on this, but not only in developing economies, because these same programs are often under-supported even in first-world countries.
VMware's debate with Cisco on SDN might finally create a fusion between an SDN view that's all about software and another that's all about network equipment. That would be good for every enterprise considering the cloud and SDN.
Wearing a bulky, oversized watch is good training for the next phase in wristwatches: the Internet-enabled, connected watch. Why the smartphone-tethered connected watch makes sense, plus Ivan demos an entirely new concept for the "smart watch."
Cloud storage costs are determined primarily by the rate at which files are changed and the possibility of concurrent access/update. If you can structure your storage use to optimize these factors you can cut costs, perhaps to zero.
The Internet has evolved into a machine for drumming up a chorus of "Happy Birthday" messages, from family, friends, friends of friends who you added on Facebook, random people that you circled on G+, and increasingly, automated bots. Enough already.