Placing the emphasis on society, I believe, dilutes the great importance of the decisions of the individual. In life you should take responsibility for your own actions first. The question is more "Is twitter a social problem?" or "Is my twitter use a problem?".
>Placing the emphasis on society, I believe, dilutes the great importance of the decisions of the individual. In life you should take responsibility for your own actions first.
I guess that's also a difference between different country's philosophies.
For me, taking "responsibility for your own actions" is a bad advice when there's stuff that needs to change at the societal level. We wouldn't say that about an issue we deem important, like racism.
We understand there that it's not just what some person believes or not, but also certain general norms, distractions, laws etc that effect this, and we strive to change those.
What I say is that technological change should be seen with the same critical eyes, not just as a inevitable constant each one should put up with or shut up, but as in "do we, as a society want to progress in this or that way? What world would we rather live in?".
Let us start at the fact the fed gov originally put construction of the NBN out to tender. After considering proposals from the worlds leading broadband infrastructure experts they decided that NO proposal could satisfy the market saturation they needed nor come in at cost point that was reasonable (there was one or the other but not both). So despite having had no experience in the field, the Gov took on the responsibility as contractor and client as well. First red flag.
Who owns this new infrastructure? The gov. What historically have federal and state governments done with valuable infrastructure assets? Sold them. Profiting? Don't make me laugh. Quick cash grabs have been at the heart of filling budget black holes in this country and the NBN won't be safe either. You're kidding yourself if you think it is.
So that leaves us with Telecom to Telstra, phase 2. It will put us back at the same limitations the current DSL debacle has left us in but oh it promises soo much more. If only our ideals became reality.
Is there a better way? Legislation currently restricts any company from building a competing network. Prior to the NBN, Telstra owned the infrastructure, period. After the NBN, even Telstra will be forced to use the NBN to provide broadband services to its residential customers. This sets a wholesale base price, creates an unnecessary retail layer on top, leaves little in the way of competition for the ISPs.. hold on. Haven't we just seen this with Electricity? That's working for us! Even if iiNet wanted to roll out FTTH before the NBN got there, they couldn't. Google want to come in and build a 1gbps network, sorry guys, we're not having that! But the NBN is fair, it's so reasonable, we won't ever need anything more because government dictates that innovation doesn't have to come at the infrastructure level, no just build services that run on it - that's all we're good for!
There are few people in Australia that know fibre like Bevan Slattery, founder of Pipe Networks. He is most known for building PPC-1, the $200m link from Sydney to Guam, forcing wholesale data prices to fall dramatically overnight. After taking the company public, they were taken over by TPG (the ISP, not the private equity firm) for $375m in March 2010. The rumour is he won big by buying the Telecom dark fibre assets that Telstra didn't want, connecting East Coast data centres from Brisbane to Melbourne, via Sydney, and owning the market for interstate DC redundancy. He is a man that knows all the difficulties in building fibre infrastructure in this country and has been a staunch critic of the NBN from the beginning. Not because having FTTH wouldn't be fantastic but because the game the government is trying to play, is one they can't win.
Here's how I think you build a better NBN.
1) Kill the idea the GOV needs to connect 93% of homes, schools and workplaces to fibre.
2) Prioritise GOVs efforts to invest solely in building a strong fibre backbone (think of our existing highway/motorway network). Allow inexpensive access to ISPs. Legislate a restriction on selling infrastructure for the next 99 years.
3) Legislate to allow competition in building new broadband infrastructure, particularly fibre. This involves allowing businesses to use existing underground conduit (even that built for other services - power, water, etc.) inexpensively or grant licence to put in new conduit and pits where suits.
4) Keep legislation that require new developments to be wired with fibre, not copper.
5) Cut the cost of accessing premium wireless spectrum and open limited ex-analog tv spectrum for free. Legislate against monopoly/duopoly leasing of spectrum, it must be opened to multiple providers.
6) Provide up to 100% tax deduction to investors who back broadband infrastructure projects, in exactly the same way they were offered to those people investing in Timber Plantation projects throughout the 1990s/2000s.
7) Target 'dark' areas that ISPs are unlikely to cover (regional and outback) and provide high-speed 4g access in either sole government or government-private partnership.
This plan encourages competition. It will allow companies like Google to offer massive speeds/data for low costs. IT will encourage new businesses to build new technology, the 4G LTE Advanced of the future! Consumers will get a better deal, government will be able to focus on other much needed infrastructure spending (roads, hospitals, schools) and overall everyone will experience the best of what technology has to offer, because it will be able to be offered.
That's my incredibly long two cents - now tell me I'm crazy. But before you cry out and say but I live in Macksville, NSW, its out of the way and no company will build there.. I'm talking about allowing an ISP, no matter how small, to connect to the (mythical) Macksville NBN pit off the Pacific Highway, very affordably, and sell high-speed services over fibre or wifi to the residents of Macksville at a reasonable price. Won't they price gauge the consumer? Unlikely given that a competitor can connect to the (mythical) Macksville NBN pit off the Pacific Highway, very affordably, and sell high-speed..... ahh you get the picture!
So far the comments have focused on the technical aspects outlined as points of failure in Amazon's summary: grid failure, diesel generator failure, and the complexities of the amazon stack.
What are your thoughts on Amazon's professionalism in their response and action plan going forward? If you're an AWS customer does this style of response keep you on board?
The level of clarity in post incident reporting by Amazon is excellent. During-incident, sub-par. Amazon seems to try to minimize any "more than just a single AZ is affected" in their realtime reporting during outages. There's also a disconnect between the graphics and the text.
What I don't like is that they make repeated promises about AZes and features which are repeatedly shown to be untrue. They also have never disclosed their testing methodology, which leads me to assume there isn't much of one. That makes me unlikely to rely on any AWS services I can't myself fully exercise, or which haven't shown themselves to be robust. S3, sure. EC2, sure (except don't depend on modifying instances on any given day during an outage). EBS, oh hell no. ELB, probably not my first choice, and certainly not my sole ft/ha layer. Route 53, which I haven't messed with, actually does seem really good, but since it's complex, I'm scared given the track record of the other complex components.
"What I don't like is that they make repeated promises about AZes and features which are repeatedly shown to be untrue."
Thats pretty much SOP in the hosting business, nobody really knows whats going to happen because nobody really knows how to test. Most developers can/do not understand what ops failures are like, and therefore most testing is only superficial.
Right, but I think we've established Amazon is actually a software company which happens to run a retail business and contract for some datacenters. Same way Google is either a supercomputer company or an advertising company which uses search to get users cheaply.
Well if you look at their status page ( http://status.aws.amazon.com/ ) none of the statuses shows red. Yellow clearly says its for performance issues and red is for service disruptions. If this isn't service disruption then I don't know what is.
Reading between the lines from both the posted note and their persistent failure to provide correct statuses: the ops guys over there are in full CYA desperation mode somewhere around 100% of the time, and a culture of 'it wasn't me', fuelled either by job fear, or promotion fear, or fear of being noticed by bezos, is in full bloom.
