September 8, 2014
Volume XLIX, Issue 7
Amazon Web Services & Google Highlight CDSE Opening Session
The DCIA & CCA are very pleased to announce that executives from Amazon Web Services and Google will highlight the Opening Session of the upcoming CLOUD DEVELOPERS SUMMIT & EXPO 2014 (CDSE:2014).
CDSE:2014 features the top-ten cloud brands Amazon, Dell, Google, HP, IBM, Microsoft, NetSuite, Oracle, Rackspace, and SAP, among many other cloud-computing innovators.
Delegate registration is now available for CDSE:2014, which will take place in Austin, TX on October 1st and 2nd.
CDSE:2014 officially opens on Wednesday morning October 1st with a program block featuring Keynote Addresses by Brigadier General Steven Spano (ret.), the General Manager, Defense and National Security for Amazon Web Services' Global Public Sector; and David Mihalchik, the Leader of US Government Solutions for Google.
General Spano retired from the USAF in September 2011, where his last assignment was as the Director of Communications, Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, VA, responsible for IT vision, policy guidance, and resource allocation supporting the command's warfighting mission.
Since joining Google in 2007, David Mihalchik has helped establish and rapidly expand Google's cloud computing footprint in the public sector. David led the effort within Google to certify and accredit Google Apps under FISMA, and he was part of the team that launched Google Apps for Government in 2010.
At CDSE:2014, business strategy and technical sessions covering the latest trends — Mobile Cloud, DevOps, and Big Data — as well as general interest cloud service topics will be featured along with a special focus on three economic sectors experiencing the most cloud adoption: Media & Entertainment, Healthcare & Life Sciences, as well as Government & Military.
At eighteen co-located CDSE:2014 instructional workshops and special seminars facilitated by industry leading speakers and world-class technical trainers, attendees will, see, hear, learn and master critical skills in sessions devoted to the unique challenges and opportunities for developers, programmers, and solutions architects.
During the business conference at CDSE:2014, thirty-six highly focused strategic and technical keynotes, breakout panels, and Q&A sessions will thoroughly explore cloud computing solutions, and ample opportunities will be provided for one-on-one networking with the major players in this space.
Register now.
Internet Slowdown Day
Excerpted from Battle for the Net Website
On September 10th, sites across the web will display an alert with a symbolic "loading" symbol (the proverbial "spinning wheel of death") and promote a call-to-action for users to push comments to the FCC, Congress, and the White House.
Note: none of these tools actually slow your site down; they tell your visitors about the issue and ask them to contact lawmakers.
Do you have a website or blog? Get the code, and run it all day on September 10th.
Know anyone with a popular iPhone or Android app? Ask them to send a push notification.
Is social media your biggest audience? Change your avatar to a spinning wheel of death. Or share these images on Facebook.
Be creative!
Grab peoples' attention with a loading symbol, and link to tools for emailing and calling lawmakers (e.g., battleforthenet.com).
Whatever you decide, tell us you're participating, announce it publicly, and commit to getting *one* person or company with a *bigger* reach than you to join in as well.
Got a question? Contact us.
Taking a Stand for Net Neutrality on September 10th
Excerpted from BitTorrent Blog by Eric Klinker
We are taking action on September 10th as part of Internet Slowdown Day, showing you what life will be like in the Slow Lane.
We've been front and center in the Net Neutrality discussion since its inception, and we're not sitting it out now.
With a decision on the new rules for the Internet from the FCC looming, the window of time to be heard on this issue is closing. What's at stake is no small affair.
What needs to be clear is that these new rules must protect against three things, at minimum:
- No blocking of traffic. - No discrimination of traffic. - No Paid Priority, what's known as the Internet "Fast Lane."
A compromise to any of these values represents egregious harm to free speech, innovation, user access and control.
Next Wednesday, September 10th, Internet users, advocates, and major tech companies are joining forces to let their voices be heard. Along with companies like Engine, Etsy, Kickstarter, Automattic (WordPress), Namecheap, Reddit, Imgur, Vimeo, Mozilla, Foursquare, BoingBoing, Dwolla, Fight for the Future and others, BitTorrent will raise awareness for what's at stake.
We've showed you what a world with Fast Lane's preferential treatment might look like. Now, on September 10th, this coalition will take a stand on the Slow Lane.
Report from CEO Marty Lafferty
 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler believes current options for Americans to access the Internet are insufficient.
As part of the first of a series of speeches on the broadband market, in Washington, DC on Thursday, Chairman Wheeler said that for higher Internet speeds, "there is simply no competitive choice for most Americans."
"Three-quarters of American homes have no competitive choice for the essential infrastructure of 21st century economics and democracy."
The DCIA could not be more supportive of the Chairman's call for faster and better broadband, and for all Americans to have more competitive broadband choices.
About 75 percent of the country does have at least two companies competing to provide web download speeds up to 4 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the FCC's current definition of "broadband."
But that speed is no longer adequate when a single HD video delivered to an end-user requires at least 5 Mbps of capacity.
The FCC has said that the standard for broadband should be updated to 10 Mbps, which Wheeler acknowledged still "doesn't fully capture the increasing demand" for high-speed Internet, especially when multiple devices use the same connection.
For download speeds of 25 Mbps, more than half the country has just one company to choose from, and one-fifth of the US has no option at all for that speed.
Depending on geography and the service tier desired, Wheeler said that for anywhere from 37 to 75 percent of US homes, there is no choice of provider.
All consumers should have access to robust broadband and to a competitive choice of providers.
The DCIA will continue to work with the FCC and other policymakers on constructive actions that will incentivize the infrastructure investment and ongoing innovation needed to make that vision a reality.
New technologies, fiber build-outs, the reallocation of additional unlicensed spectrum for commercial mobile broadband use, and other steps to improve the efficiency of wired and wireless broadband networks need to be taken.
Does this justify reclassifying broadband as a communications service, which would give the FCC much greater authority to regulate broadband services?
With broadband reclassified under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, theoretically the FCC could take measures to encourage more and more effective competition.
But there is no way to demonstrate that such a reclassification would actually lead to needed private sector improvements and modernization rather than the opposite.
Instead, the DCIA suggests revisiting the principles Chairman Wheeler has expounded for some time now and identifying practical, common-sense, business approaches to best achieve each of them:
Where competition exists, the Commission will protect it; where greater competition can exist, the Commission will encourage it; where meaningful competition is not available, the Commission will work to create it; and where competition cannot be expected to exist, the Commission must shoulder the responsibility of promoting the deployment of broadband for the sake of consumers and innovators.
If history can be trusted to serve as a guide, a light regulatory touch will encourage more investment from more companies and a higher degree of technological advancement in every one of these areas. Share wisely, and take care.
Major Tech Firms Join Internet Slowdown on September 10th
Excerpted from ZDNet Report by Charlie Osborne
A number of well-known companies have pledged their support for the Internet Slowdown on September 10th.
However, there's no need to panic -- your Internet speeds will remain unchanged.
Instead, companies supporting the campaign will display a Battle for the Net emblem, widget or banner which shows a revolving icon -- the proverbial "spinning wheel of death" -- on their websites. The campaign is supported by nonprofit groups including Fight for the Future and Demand Progress.
Battle for the Net's Internet Slowdown day is scheduled five days before the US Federal Communications Commission's comment period on fresh Internet regulations comes to a close.
The FCC is currently redrafting its rules, following legal challenges by telecommunications firms and content providers. While a number of different proposals are being considered, at the crux of this campaign is Net Neutrality -- treating all traffic in the same way -- or opening the door for potential fast-lane traffic and preferential treatment, which could be offered by ISPs for additional profit.
While this may become an additional revenue stream for ISPs, critics worry this would undermine websites and companies unable to afford premium services, which could in turn impact on web innovation and equality as their traffic may be reduced by being part of the "slow lane."
Over one million comments have been sent to the FCC in regards to the issue, and reports suggest only a small fraction oppose Net Neutrality.
In a blog post, Silicon Valley lobbying firm Engine revealed a long list of supporters, including Automattic, Cheezburger, Dwolla, Etsy, Foursquare, General Assembly, Kickstarter, Meetup, Mozilla, Namecheap, Reddit and Vimeo. More companies are expected to be revealed next week. The company wrote:
"A long-awaited decision from the FCC on the future of Net Neutrality is imminent, and we're excited to see companies that depend on an open Internet rallying together to let the FCC know once and for all that an Internet with fast lanes and slow lanes is unacceptable."
The "slow down" is related to how the Internet could look, should "fast lane" and preferential treatment of traffic based on corporate deals be allowed, according to critics.
In a Reddit thread, Pornhub, Redtube, and Youporn also revealed their websites are supporting the protest.
If individuals wish to support the Internet Slowdown campaign, they are encouraged by Battle for the Net to change their Twitter profile pictures to the revolving wheel on September 10th.
US Prepares for Internet Slowdown Day
Excerpted from TelecomTV Report by Ian Scales
This Wednesday (September 10th), an online protest called Slowdown Day is being urged in the US by the Fight for the Future organization and no doubt supported by a range of other public interest groups there. It will be interesting to see how much support the day receives in Europe too, given that the European Parliament's Net Neutrality legislation could still be overturned or modified by the member states.
Users, websites and content providers will be urged to display "slowdown" symbols on their landing pages - icons such as the spinning wheel which indicate that whatever is downloading or streaming has stalled. Other forms of online action are also being urged - such as users changing avatars, blog, or Facebook pictures; services posting information screens on Net Neutrality on their landing pages or even sending push notifications.
Net Neutrality protest action has been hampered in the past by not having a clear 'What do we want?' or even a 'When do we want it?' given it was something to be defended rather than constructed. And given that the issue has been mired in abstract argument around definitions and diverted by absurd interventions by think tanks and paid advocates.
But now both the 'What' and 'When' have crystallized: the FCC is going through the final week or so of accepting public submissions on what should be done (said submissions are alleged to be running 99 per cent in favor of Net Neutrality), and FCC Chairman, Wheeler, has himself offered up the 'What do we want?' by leavening his ambivalent stance (he appeared to be in favor of two-sided business models at the start of his regime) with a promise to invoke the dreaded 'Title II' regulatory status on ISPs if their behavior warranted it.
That would mean ISPs would become common carriers and (it's alleged) be regulated like the telephone companies they're often a part of.
So having offered up the ultimate sanction the protest day is designed to help Wheeler, in conjunction with all the submissions he's receiving, come down in its favor.
What do we want? ISPs as Common Carriers.
When do we want it? Just as soon as you've finished reading the millions of Net Neutrality submissions.
This Year's Net Neutrality Debate Has Completely Missed the Point
Excerpted from Washington Post Report by Larry Downes
Late last week, Silicon Valley Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) launched a contest on Reddit to "rebrand" Net Neutrality. "All the jargon about Net Neutrality rules," Eshoo wrote, "is making it difficult for users to know what box to check that advances their best interest."
Whether Redditors can come up with better jargon, and whether or not better jargon is really what's needed, Rep. Eshoo is certainly correct that the term has lost all meaning — if it ever had any in the first place.
In response to the FCC's latest effort to pass legally-enforceable rules limiting how Internet service providers (ISPs) manage increasingly complex Internet traffic, advocacy groups and others have intentionally upended the process with extreme rhetoric, leaving most users unsure whether Chairman Tom Wheeler's on-going initiative would advance or undermine the open Internet (as the FCC refers to Net Neutrality).
That confusion is clear from even a random sampling of over a million comments submitted so far, many of which could not be read over the air without violating FCC decency rules.
Most reflect little understanding of the proposal's actual content, or the legal and technical context in which Wheeler and his two Democratic colleagues are operating. Instead, consumers are understandably upset over misleading claims that the Democratic commissioners are trying to "Kill Net Neutrality" and "End the Internet as we know it."
In fact, the Chairman insists, he is trying to do just the opposite.
How did we get here? Despite the doomsday scares of a technology apocalypse, the current fight over who and how to regulate the Internet is not about the future of innovation, Internet access, broadband pricing, competition, fairness, or motherhood. It's something much less exciting, though, depending on the outcome, much more dangerous.
The strength of the Internet has always been its openness. Its technical protocols aren't owned by anyone, meaning everyone can create a website, send and receive e-mail, or host advanced audio and video services just by following the standards. So long as they know where to find it, users can access whatever content they are interested in.
If that is all that is meant by Net Neutrality, there is no serious argument about its value. But the realities of Internet engineering have never been so simple. The real and often intentionally hidden issue in the Net Neutrality debate has always been who should oversee the specific technical decisions that must be made on a daily basis. Should they be left to the engineers themselves? Or should we rely on traditional regulators — the United Nations, the FCC, and/or state public utility commissions?
In the United States, that question was definitively answered in 1996, when a bipartisan Congress, along with the Clinton White House, gave regulators minimal authority over the then-nascent commercial Internet, hoping to protect it from overregulation.
That was a wise decision. Since 1996, network operators have invested over $1 trillion building and upgrading infrastructure, reinventing "the Internet as we know it" from static, text-based web pages and slow dial-up to the video-dominated, high-speed wired and wireless broadband we enjoy today.
No surprise, then, that as the FCC sought in 2010 to codify its open Internet principles into legally-enforceable rules, an extended and contentious public comment process uncovered only four examples of possibly dangerous behavior, only one of which (the blocking of Internet telephone services by a small rural phone company) required FCC action to correct.
Earlier this year, however, a federal appellate court threw out much of the 2010 rulemaking on procedural grounds. But the court also agreed with the agency that a largely unused provision of the law, known as Section 706, could be used to ground the rules more securely.
That's when the process was intentionally derailed.
From inside the FCC, word leaked out in April that new rules Wheeler was drafting weren't simple revisions needed to comply with the court's ruling. Rather, according to a noisy campaign led by self-styled consumer advocates and a few large Internet companies, the three Obama appointees were plotting to "Kill" Net Neutrality.
The new rules, users were told, would not, as the 2010 rules had tried to do, prohibit dangerous network management practices. Instead, the Democrats were secretly planning to "authorize" ISPs to create last-mile Internet "fast lanes" available to the highest bidder. ("It's True," wrote one of the advocacy groups. "The FCC's 'Open Internet' Proposal Would Bless Internet Discrimination and Destroy Net Neutrality.")
The fast lane claim was a red herring.
Despite the absence of any legally-enforceable rules between 1996 and today, no ISP has ever tried to sell such services. Some have indicated they have no objection to an explicit and prophylactic ban.
When the actual proposal was made public in May, in any case, Wheeler's supposed conspiracy was exposed as a complete fabrication.
The rules he proposed differed only trivially from their 2010 counterparts. The "no blocking" and "transparency" rules were the same. To satisfy the court's instructions, a third rule that prohibited ISPs from engaging in network management practices that "unreasonably discriminated" among content providers was changed to one that prohibited practices that were "commercially unreasonable."
That's it.
There was no reference in the rules to "fast lanes" or the equivalent. In the agency's official notice and in the separate comments of the Democrats, even the idea of last mile preferences was explicitly rejected. Nothing was "authorized" or even "blessed." The rules were and continue to be legal prohibitions ("shall not engage") on ISP behavior.
And in terms of FCC enforcement of the rules, the difference between "unreasonable discrimination" in network management and "commercially unreasonable" network management is probably no difference at all.
So why the hysteria?
Many of the groups involved in what became a very personal campaign against Wheeler have long sought to turn the Internet into a regulated utility or even to nationalize it outright. Any real or perceived threat to "the Internet as we know it," even a manufactured crisis, is simply another opportunity to push an agenda Congress wisely rejected in 1996.
The extremists don't want the FCC to adopt any rules. They want the agency, instead, to take over. That's the hammer; Net Neutrality is just a convenient nail.
Yet much of the mainstream media, including the New York Times and US News, continue to validate the non-conspiracy.
They continue to accept, for example, that Wheeler is proposing to "authorize" practices dangerous to the Internet (again, the rules only prohibit practices), to "end" existing Net Neutrality rules (there are none), and even to allow ISPs to "block" content at their discretion (the no-blocking rule explicitly prohibits this, as does antitrust law).
While Internet engineering groups and leading content providers have tellingly stayed out of the current firestorm, Internet video giant Netflix continues to stoke the flames for reasons of its own. Since March, founder Reed Hastings has personally tried to hijack the discussion from one about the last mile to one about the inner workings of the Internet, where content companies connect with ISPs.
Which is odd, because, like all large content companies, Netflix uses the full suite of network management technologies and partners to serve its millions of customers. The company, for example, has long made use of content delivery networks (CDNs), which replicate content, especially video, at key points in ISP networks. (Smaller companies rent space on CDNs from third parties including Akamai and Limelight, or, like Netflix, save money by building their own.)
Netflix has also recently joined every other large content provider in placing its equipment at co-location facilities, where they cross-connect directly to ISP networks.
These services were designed to speed up the delivery of video and other high-bandwidth content. (Netflix video accounts for a third of all Internet traffic during peak viewing hours.) But they do so without degrading the performance of other content — including content of competitors. That's why CDNs and co-location, along with almost a dozen other technologies, were explicitly exempted from the 2010 rules as "reasonable" forms of non-neutral network management.
Netflix, of course, doesn't want CDNs and other optimization technologies banned. They just don't want to continue paying for them. Understandably, the company, which faces ballooning prices for the programming it licenses, wants to cut access costs to the bone. So unlike other large content providers and third parties large and small, Netflix has insisted that smaller ISPs host its equipment free of charge (refusing to pay what Hastings calls, unhelpfully, "Internet tolls").
Netflix now hopes, under cover of the chaotic Net Neutrality proceeding, that it can convince the FCC to step in even deeper, micromanaging core engineering activities such as transit and interconnection, or what Hastings calls "Strong Net Neutrality." Specifically, Netflix wants the FCC to mandate that ISPs accommodate any and all CDNs and co-located servers at no charge from any content provider (or maybe just Netflix).
Make no mistake, however, about the company's motives. Though Netflix has co-opted the rhetoric of consumer advocacy, the company's activism, for better or worse, is transparently self-serving. Just as taxicab companies are using regulators to stop Uber and Lyft, and hotels are lobbying for prohibitions on Airbnb, Netflix is using the Net Neutrality debate to improve its own bottom line.
An inch below the surface, the company just wants regulations that would constrain its competitive rivals and suppliers. It's what economists call "rent-seeking behavior," and it's as old as capitalism.
In this case, however, it's particularly dangerous behavior.
And if it results in the FCC treating the Internet like a power or water company, a Netflix victory could prove pyrrhic. Transforming Internet access into a public utility might sound like a solution to a range of hypothetical problems — until you consider the decayed state of our existing utilities and regulated infrastructure, which, on any measure, continue to deteriorate. (The American Society of Civil Engineers gives most of it a "D.")
At best, a full or partial government takeover of Internet access would almost certainly slow future network evolution. And in a bit of irony lost on the advocates, such a radical move, assuming it passed legal muster, would actually make "fast lanes" easier, not harder, for ISPs to market.
There's simply no benefit — and enormous cost — to turning the Internet over to the FCC. Indeed, given the dearth of serious technical or legal problems in nearly 20 years of an unregulated Internet, it's not clear that any new FCC rules are required. But in no sense is the Democrats' proposal designed to "kill" Net Neutrality or otherwise destroy the Internet.
As far as the Internet is concerned, Congress and the White House got things very, very right in 1996.
A million pieces of hate mail to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and new terminology can't change the past. Let's hope it won't change the future either.
With Named Data Networking, a Future without Servers and IP Addresses
Excerpted from GigaOM Report by Jonathan Vanian
Researchers from UCLA, Cisco Systems, Verisign, and others have formed a group that advocates for new type of networking model that they believe can handle large amounts of bandwidth and remove the need for servers.
A team of researchers from universities and big tech companies have united to advance and popularize the concept of Named Data Networking (NDN), which calls for a new type of Internet architecture that does away with the standard Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) that's currently used to distribute information over the web.
The NDN Consortium — whose members include team leader University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), University of Michigan, Cisco Systems, Verisign, and others — held the first of its series of meetings on Wednesday and Thursday of this week in which they discussed the current state of NDN and its potential to improve scientific research.
Earlier this summer, GigaOM's Stacey Higginbotham detailed how NDN fits into the future of the Internet and how the emerging technology could take advantage of the connected world. In its simplest form, today's era of networking involves servers that transmit data to recipients based on their device's IP addresses. What makes NDN interesting is that it would eliminate the need of servers and IP addresses in order to funnel data between users.
With Named Data Networking, a user will be able to send out a request for information called an interest packet that the router can store in what's known as a pending interest table; basically, a holding ground for all requests.
From there, the router can scour the web and the multiple devices connected to it to find the appropriate data that the user wants. Because the data is stored in a data packet that contains a unique name, the router can intelligently locate all instances where the data may be hosted and stream that data directly to the user in bits and pieces.
The idea is similar to how the peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing company BitTorrent functions in that if you wanted to download a movie, for example, you would do so by connecting directly to other users who transmit fragments of the movie to your own device.
The NDN Consortium believes that while the underlying way the Internet currently functions is capable of supporting the myriad connected devices and transmission of data to those devices, the NDN model of networking is much more appropriate for the future; this model could potentially lead to better network security, a better way to meet the increasing need bandwidth and can perhaps make it easier to develop complex applications.
The NDN project is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and has received over $13.5 million in funding since 2010.
BitTorrent Woos Advertisers and Publishers
Excerpted from AdWeek Report by Erik Oster
BitTorrent, the popular peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing platform, is pursuing publishers and advertisers, Digiday reported earlier today.
BitTorrent, which is responsible for as much as 35 percent of all Internet traffic, points to its use by record labels and broadcasters to release music and shows, and as Digiday pointed out, even the UK government used the platform to release information to citizens about how tax money is spent.
BitTorrent is releasing a suite of new products aimed at publishers and advertisers. The company claims its massive reach (170 million monthly users ranks BitTorrent ahead of Pinterest and Spotify), especially with a younger audience (63 percent of that audience is under 34, half in high school) makes it an ideal platform for marketing.
As James Fox, CEO of Red Peak Branding told Digiday, the right brand, seeking to capitalize on BitTorrent's counter-cultural positioning, could do well with the platform.
"In the same way Dov Charney used Vice magazine to be the Vogue for his American Apparel, some clever brand owner may want BitTorrent to be the media placement of choice for their product or service. BitTorrent would be a great place to create buzz around a new video game or even a new album release," he told the publication.
The company does seem to be generating some interest in those departments, having worked with Madonna, Marc Ecko and Moby. It also recently agreed to a deal with General Electric, allowing a song created by Matthew Dear for a recent campaign to be downloaded via the brand's Bundle. Since launching on August 27th, the song has been downloaded 1.5 million times.
In addition to Bundle, which allows brands or publishers to offer users content to be downloaded in batches, BitTorrent also recently unveiled Sync, which allows users to share unlimited content across devices, and Bleep, a new chat service. According to BitTorrent, Bleep offers a decentralized connection allowing users to send information without fear of being snooped on.
With recent revelations about the flaws of cloud security, BitTorrent, a longtime champion of a free and private Internet, is an increasingly enticing option. Marketers and publishers may find the platform intriguing as well.
Celebrities Get Phished, but the Cloud Gets Blamed
Excerpted from InfoWorld Report by David Linthicum
Once again, I'm made aware of new cloud security issues by the ringing of my cellphone, as reporters look for a quote on a story. This time, the story had a few elements that made the new breach more exciting, including Apple and female celebrities.
It seems that hackers targeted celebrities using research and brute force to figure out how to access information in Apple's iCloud. According to reports circulating on the web, the hackers managed to access backups on Apple's iCloud servers that occur each night to make sure that your lost or stolen phone does not lead to lost and stolen information.
Of course, the spin is that "cloud computing" failed and the cloud is unsecure. I hear these rants each time attacks of this type occur, no matter if it's truly a cloud service or, in most cases, internal systems that are somehow compromised. Because no one in the general media really knows what a "cloud" is, it's all a cloud to them.
Let's get this straight: All clouds and all traditional systems are vulnerable to attack. There's always some way to get in, even if it's scamming somebody to give up their user ID and password (the good, old-fashioned phishing method that was the actual cause of the "iCloud breach"), guessing passwords, or pushing your way in. There are many very effective security measures to lower the risks, but there is always a risk. Get over it.
For the most part, clouds are not part of the problem. Only a small percentage of systems and data exists on cloud-based platforms, and enterprises have taken care to lock them up pretty tight. Indeed, if there are any breaches, they seem to be associated with more traditional on-premises systems, such as the Target breach earlier this year and the Sony breach a few years ago. Of course, they are often portrayed as cloud issues, but they are clearly not clouds.
In the case of the iCloud breach, Apple can take steps to ensure this type of event is unlikely to occur in the future, such as tightening its second-factor authentication to make phishing less effective. (In fact, Apple plans to do just that.) However, when people are involved, there is always the element of human error. That's what phishing actually targets, and there's no technology cure for that ailment.
There's not a great deal we can do about that -- I don't think, for example, that celebrities would be willing to attend a cloud security class, where they learn how to pick solid passwords and recognize phishing emails. But their assistants definitely should!
Verizon Makes Integrated Services Push around Cloud
Excerpted from LightReading Report by Carol Wilson
Verizon's new cloud fabric, launched a year ago, is being combined with its network and security services to create a host of new offers, including a rapidly growing Internet of Things (IoT) portfolio, says the new executive in charge of the global cloud ecosystem at Verizon Enterprise Solutions. (See Why Verizon Needed a Cloud Reboot.)
In an interview with Light Reading, Siki Giunta, SVP, Cloud & Connected Solutions, says this month will mark the beginning of announcements around Verizon Enterprise Solutions 's more tightly integrated cloud, security and network functions to enable enterprises to more easily pick and choose what they need, and also to support IoT offers through Verizon's growing set of partners.
The cloud fabric, announced last October, has been in beta deployment with hundreds of customers. But Verizon is now bringing that fully to market with a new console that sits in front of its entire cloud portfolio and provides the automation that gives customers more control of a full continuum of Verizon services, she explains.
"It is actually a more consistent effort to create an end-to-end solution for the customer," says Giunta, who joined Verizon in March after leading Computer Sciences Corp.'s (CSC) cloud strategy. "Enterprises want to see an integrated solution, not just two teams working together."
Verizon has started working with the 400 partners in its IoT ecosystem to move them to the cloud and seamlessly connect the wireless network, and is also enabling customers to create tighter bonds between Verizon's cloud services and its security offerings.
"We created a broad view of clouds and a user interface and service catalog to connections, so that we have the ability to put managed service tiers on top of it, because this is very important to the enterprise, and to create this bonded services with security," Giunta says.
That means enterprises turning up cloud services can specify the degree and type of security they want to protect their cloud-based workloads and network connections.
Solutions include a Meter Data Management service, built by Verizon with partner Siemens, which is a cloud-based service aimed at utility companies that includes advanced metering infrastructure, secure data both in transit and in storage, massive data storage and applications. By combining the cloud with wireless connectivity and security, Verizon can make it easier for companies to bring these applications to market. Of course, Verizon ends up selling its services as well. A list of some of the services it's offering is here.
"Today we have a suite of solutions, we have applications and various services created by partners and our network," she says. "The cloud is just a catalyst - it lets things have more scalability and transparency."
As a service catalyst, Verizon's cloud is available across the company - with Verizon's own IT department as one of its customers, Giunta says. She is determined to make it the first place considered internally as the platform for any new services.
Another part of her new job involves the growing IoT market, and solving the familiar conundrum of how to monetize what everyone admits is a growing trend. Again, Giunta points to the value of integration, in this case the integration of partners into Verizon's ecosystem, which includes professional services as well as the cloud, security and the network.
By offering potential partners a place in one of the two Verizon Innovation Labs - in San Francisco and Boston - in which to test their devices and validate them on the network, Verizon is helping develop the business models and even, in some cases, the sales channel for IoT applications. (See Pics: Verizon Innovation Generator, Verizon Pushes 4G LTE for M2M and Verizon Highlights Work on LTE Products & Services.)
Of course, growth in the IoT space benefits Verizon in multiple ways, since it provides the wireless networks that connect devices and it is providing the cloud services to store and analyze the massive amount of data that IoT will generate, a fact Giunta acknowledges.
"On top of that, the other challenge for IoT is security - having an inherently secure cloud with secure connections at the network, that is very strongly one of the things we can offer," she says.
Verizon will be introducing its own cloud-based analytics service, working with a partner, but Giunta says the company will also work with customers who want to bring their own data analytics to the party, and offer their IoT and network services independent of that.
"Big data doesn't go all in one bucket -- there isn't a bucket big enough," Giunta says with a laugh. "So our challenge is, how do you create the best network-configured layer for data so that analytics and search can be optimized."
Verizon has value to offer in collecting the data, securing it and being able to deliver the data to where it's needed, or an analytical service in addition. But there is much more to come in this realm, Giunta says. Just stay tuned.
Telefonica Determined to Dominate the Cloud
Excerpted from Business-Cloud Report by Ian Murphy
Telefonica believes mobile operators still have an opportunity to become major players in the cloud.
Eduardo Mendez Polo, Head of IT Cloud & Low Cost at Telefonica has told an audience at Broadband World Forum that there are still opportunities available for mobile operators in cloud. He said: "We may be late to the table but, like all operators, we have had different priorities. The cloud market is very complicated — there isn't a single market and the tough fight is for telcos to provide a single solution that will lure businesses away from the Internet cloud providers"
The challenge for the operators is how to convince customers that they can be major players in the cloud. In essence, this shouldn't be hard. AT&T, Verizon, A1 Telekom in Austria, BT, NTT - these are just a few of the telcos that not only have a long history in outsourcing IT for their customers but have moved into cloud. For some, such as NTT, that has come through acquisition of IT specialists such as Dimension Data and providing them with the infrastructure for high-speed global communications.
Verizon went a different path and decided to build its skills in-house and then create an app store so that it could deliver business services. A third strategy was employed by A1 Telekom who did a deal with IBM for white label cloud services. A1 would sell the services and IBM would run the data center. For many smaller telcos, this has been an attractive and low cost route to cloud.
All of this points to a stable and mature cloud and data center market for telcos. But these are telcos that have built their businesses through fixed line services. As such, they have a well-established relationship with the IT buyers in enterprises. Mobile operators have begun to break into this market through their managed services and mobile broadband offerings but need to do more. What the mobile operators really need to do is prove that they can extend their mobile broadband experience into the mainstream Internet and cloud market. For large operators such as Telefonica, EE, Three and Vodafone, this shouldn't be a problem.
According to Polo: "Telecom operators provide managed services for communications, so should be providing managed services for the cloud, too." But do mobile operators really want to go about building cloud data centers? Most already have complex data center operations in order to deliver services to their existing customers and manage regulatory requirement on data retention and search. Adding cloud into that mix might be a problem for them and capital expenditure they can ill afford.
Polo recognizes that success in the cloud might require a rethink of existing business models. "In order to dominate the cloud market, operators will need to look to collaboration. This can often be best for the business and customer. Our own solutions can work, but going via a third party or acquisition might make more sense, and be more effective, for other operators that may not have the capabilities themselves."
This is what A1 Telekom did when it wanted to enter the cloud market. It went to IBM, purchased capacity on IBM's Managed Cloud services and then white labeled it to customers. While the larger mobile operators may opt for their own infrastructure, this approach will appeal to many of the mid-range mobile operators.
But what about the Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO)? These operators own little infrastructure of their own, instead they buy what they need, when they need it in order to meet customer demands. This means that they can enter the market cheaply as they have no infrastructure costs but it doesn't enable them to engage with the enterprise.
OnApp has built a Virtual Service Provider (VSP) solution that mirror the way MVNOs work. The can buy access to cloud services from participating cloud vendors as and when required. If they find services cheaper, they can move customers to take advantage of that. For smaller mobile operators who lack the scale and experience of Telefonica, this would at least give them access to IaaS on demand.
This is also a service that other mobile operators could offer. After all, they currently sell capacity to MVNOs so adding cloud would not be a difficult proposition. Polo seems to think the same thing. "Telefonica has taken a managed services role approach to the cloud market, by offering an end-to-end, whole-level service to businesses. It offers important factors such as security, service level and ability, as well as the provision to offer customers services above and beyond pure infrastructure."
But will all of this convince the buyers? According to Polo, "We now have a strong platform but the biggest challenge has been convincing the CIO, and there is still a way to go for any cloud services provider. We were talking about the cloud seven years ago but we are still seeing that many companies are not going ahead to cloud, or just pushing small pieces of IT to the cloud.
"The job for operators is to convince CIOs and give them confidence that operators can be their first option. As a comms customer, they already know they put responsibility in the hands of telcos, so why not with the cloud?"
In all of this, the one thing that Polo has left out is security. Do companies trust their mobile operators to keep data secure? The current anti-terror and crime legislation around Europe requires all telcos to hold data for extended periods. As a new entrant into cloud, mobile operators will need to show that they can be trusted with data and have separate policies on data retention that can be enforced by customers.
Venture Capitalists Have Highest Investor Confidence in Cloud Computing
Excerpted from MSPmentor Report by Michael Brown
For the second year in a row, venture capital (VC) investors have had their eyes on cloud computing according to a 2014 Global Venture Capital Confidence Survey, which is great news for managed service providers (MSPs) looking to expand their businesses in the cloud, including with cloud-based file sharing.
The survey, which probed the minds of more than 300 venture capital, private equity and growth equity investors in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa showed particularly strong levels of investor confidence in the mobile and cloud computing area.
The following is a closer look at some of the results, and what this could mean for the future cloud innovation and computing.
The investors polled were asked to rate their confidence levels on a variety of different market factors in specific geographies and industry sectors on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most confident.
For the second year in a row, VC investors in the United States listed cloud computing and mobile technology as their top choice for investor confidence, with cloud computing at 4.29 and mobile technology close behind at 4.28. In fact, overall investor confidence has grown over the past 3 years, up from 2 percent last year. This was attributed to improving capital market conditions and the abundance of new start-up companies.
Zeus Kerravala from ZK Research said, "This is great. Typically, innovation comes from start-ups, not the huge information technology (IT) companies. These smaller, more nimble companies can bring innovative solutions to market. VC investments help drive new ideas."
Therefore, we can expect to see many opportunities for change and innovation in the cloud and MSP arenas, as venture capitalists put their funding into new cloud resources and solutions.
VC investments could further help cloud expand into the mobile arena.
It's not a coincidence that investors are confident in the mobile and cloud space simultaneously. Solid financial backing will help converge the mobile and cloud computing spaces in a way that broadens the set of cloud solutions available to us.
Currently, cloud services are predominantly made to run with desktop apps. But as Kerravala puts it, "Cloud apps should be more predictive and have contextual knowledge of who you are, where you are, and what you're doing."
Optimizing the cloud for the mobile world will offer new opportunities for MSPs and help enterprises integrate into their systems.
Bobby Franklin, president and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) spoke of this wealth of investor confidence and called on policymakers to support the innovators who build these next generation companies.
"In order to maintain this enthusiasm in US innovation, policymakers in Washington need to come together to enact policies that support the creation of sustainable, high-growth companies that create jobs and drive economic growth."
According to the survey, the greatest confidence for investing lies within IT and technology related sectors that are less capital intensive. In other words, enterprises that require a proportionately large financial expenditure relative to the amount of labor involved, such as hardware and semiconductor sectors, are not seeing much enthusiasm.
Technology, robotics, enterprise software, cloud computing, and mobile companies will be seeing a lot of change however, leaving a lot of room and opportunity for MSPs to evolve with it.
Coming Events of Interest
Cutting Edge Developments Affecting Cloud Companies in Privacy & Data Security — September 16th at 12:00 PM ET. One-hour webinar by the DCIA and Edwards Wildman Palmer featuring a discussion of key issues affecting privacy and security in data and high tech and a preview of what to expect at CDSE:2014.
Cloud Connect China — September 16th-18th in Shanghai, China. This event brand was established in Silicon Valley (US) in 2008. Last year, it was first introduced into China, providing all-dimensional cloud computing solutions through pay conferences and exhibition.
International Conference on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems — September 22nd in Calabria, Italy. IDCS 2014 conference is the sixth in its series to promote research in diverse fields related to Internet and distributed computing systems. The emergence of web as a ubiquitous platform for innovations has laid the foundation for the rapid growth of the Internet.
CLOUD DEVELOPERS SUMMIT & EXPO 2014 — October 1st-2nd in Austin, TX. CDSE:2014 will feature co-located instructional workshops and conference sessions on six tracks facilitated by more than one-hundred industry leading speakers and world-class technical trainers.
IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing for Emerging Markets — October 15th-17th in Bangalore, India. The third annual CCEM, will address the unique challenges and opportunities of cloud computing for emerging markets in a high quality event that brings together industry, government, and academic leaders in cloud computing.
CloudComp 2014 — October 19th-21st in Guilin, China. The fifth annual international conference on cloud computing. The event is endorsed by the European Alliance for Innovation, a leading community-based organization devoted to the advancement of innovation in the field of ICT.
International Conference on Cloud Computing Research & Innovation — October 29th-30th in Singapore. ICCRI:2014 covers a wide range of research interests and innovative applications in cloud computing and related topics. The unique mix of R&D, end-user, and industry audience members promises interesting discussion, networking, and business opportunities in translational research & development.
GOTO Berlin 2014 Conference — November 5th–7th in Berlin, Germany. GOTO Berlin is the enterprise software development conference designed for team leads, architects, and project management and is organized "for developers by developers". New technology and trends in a non-vendor forum.
PDCAT 2014 — December 9th-11th in Hong Kong. The 16th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies (PDCAT 2014) is a major forum for scientists, engineers, and practitioners throughout the world to present their latest research, results, ideas, developments and applications in all areas of parallel and distributed computing.
Storage Visions Conference — January 4th-5th in Las Vegas, NV. The fourteenth annual conference theme is: Storage with Intense Network Growth (SWING). Storage Visions Awards presented there cover significant products, services, and companies in many digital storage markets.
|
