3 posts • joined 22 Nov 2012
American consumers aren't dumb
Your several arguments are quite weak, and the court's ruling does have some strong points. We can only hope that, by putting the regulatory body on firm ground, we can get regulations that everyone abides by.
First, a duopoly isn't a wide open market, and the real feet-on-the-ground experience of American internet users is clear : there's rarely a reasonable choice. The court reasons - correctly - that the duopoly power we've created in internet service might be better than a pure monopoly, but it isn't a free market. Your statments that a customer "would just switch" are simply laughable to most of America.
In my area, I can get service from Comcast/Xfinity, and from ATT/Uverse. Right now, Xfinity is providing much better quality of service - my Uverse friends say they have multiple outages per day, periods when ATT's core routers seem congested and broken, and switching to Xfinity cleared it up. In my area, Xfinity offers speeds to 150Mb/sec, Uverse offers 20Mb/sec. Wireless in my area is possible (10Mb/sec), but cells seems to get jammed up now and then, hard to keep a VPN connection live - and wireless data fees are high (roughly $10/GB).
This is, at least, the duopoly at work. Many people I talk to are living with Uverse's poor service, but some are switching. Some stick because of the visceral loathing of Comcast, some can't be bothered.
If we add another axis, where each provider blocks some set of websites, good luck to me for figuring out who I'm going to use as a provider. One partners with Amazon, one with Netflix. What, I'm supposed to get both turned on? The court argues this is ridiculous, that limited set of provicers is reasonable for physical infrastructure, and thus is rightfully regulated.
Finally, we - internet users of america - aren't worried so much about blocking of a single media website like Netflix. Your straw man paints an unreasonable light. The real fear is google being held up to ensure quick response, and every other media company. The Reg certainly has a dog in this fight - they might be required to wrap their content in a larger company's livery (imagine: Yahoo), pay that company for the privilege, that company is paying off the ISPs for reasonable carriage, and The Reg has to squeeze all its contributors.
A poor way to run a railroad.
Leave the duopoly as it stands, but require "common carriage" style rules, allowing these companies to compete in a marketplace without a torture of 'if I want this movie series I have to choose that ISP'. That'll be fine.
welcome to the party, IBM
IBM has finally realized developers are let down by 10gen's NoSQL implementation, and IBM can provide an enterprise solution to address 10gen's failings. This API needs standardization - but make no mistake, this is IBM's move to cannibalize 10gen's enterprise sales effort by offering DB/2.
At Aerospike, we've delivered a fast and scalable ACID NoSQL solution, and seen huge market uptake - we understand IBM's interest in playing catch up in this market.
The fact that Aerospike has several ex-DB/2 engineers and advice from Don Haderle has helped.
this isn't about SQL
SQL is about the language, FoundationDB is about scalable transactions. Foundation seems to have some good technology, it will be interesting to see where they get traction as they have not yet been deployed at scale - unlike, say, http://aerospike.com/
The statement about the CAP theorem makes good press, but is misleading. It is absolutely possible to build at-scale transactions, and the CAP theorem doesn't prevent that. What happened was the CAP theorem allowed developers and architects to talk openly about relaxed consistency, which they had already given up by deploying and relying on memcache and sharded MySQL (memcache gives an inconsistent view of the data, shards remove the ability to transactionalize many queries, and MySQL is often run in a non-durable mode).
Once you've given up transactions, you have more choices in which database to use. But Foundation is right, the next step is to build safe transactions into scale-up databases. There is - absoluetly - a new world of databases, and the savvy architect needs to keep up with the times. When millions of transactions per second is an easy step, new businesses and problems can be attacked.
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Sysadmins and devs: Do these job descriptions make any sense?