Oracle And Cisco Both Support The FCC's Rollback Of Net Neutrality (thehill.com) 136
An anonymous reader quotes The Hill:
Oracle voiced support on Friday for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's controversial plan to roll back the agency's net neutrality rules. In a letter addressed to the FCC, the company played up its "perspective as a Silicon Valley technology company," hammering the debate over the rules as a "highly political hyperbolic battle," that is "removed from technical, economic, and consumer reality"... Oracle wrote in their letter [PDF] that they believe Pai's plan to remove broadband providers from the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction "will eliminate unnecessary burdens on, and competitive imbalances for, ISPs [internet service providers] while enhancing the consumer experience and driving investment"... Other companies in support of Pai's plan, like AT&T and Verizon, have made the argument that the rules stifled investment in the telecommunications sector, specifically in broadband infrastructure.
Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers."
Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers."
duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Oracle and Cisco want to sell hardware and services to the ISP's to manage their traffic prioritization
Re:duh (Score:4, Interesting)
Came here's just to say that... Cisco is going to make a ton of money selling "quality of service" network upgrades to ISPs. Oracle is going to make a ton of money selling user tracking databases. These companies are the entrenched "industry standards" they make bank when GIANT companies do good.. startups can't afford them, and aren't their customers so screw them.
Re: (Score:1)
they make bank when GIANT companies do good
Do well. Important distinction here.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is whether we support their application to allow the rules to be changed so that they can make loads of money from making new "pitchforks". The question is not whether making "pitchforks" is a good thing. The question is whether we approve of the ISP's using the "pitchforks" for pitchforking babies - which is their most likely use.
Re:duh (Score:5, Interesting)
You are so incredibly naive that you would probably also believe Larry if he announced that he was removing all license fees for the Oracle DB.
I don't know what Oracle's angle is, but Larry doesn't support anything that doesn't add to his wealth.
Cisco's angle is obvious. They want to sell DPI, and other, hardware, which will require constant upgrades and service to keep up with demands. Dumb routers are practically commodity these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are so incredibly naive that you would probably also believe Larry if he announced that he was removing all license fees for the Oracle DB.
No, you just jumped to the wrong conclusion. The point here is not that Oracle is honest or dishonest, the point is that their nefarious agenda has OBVIOUSLY nothing to do with selling database licenses to ISP, they're in it because the only segment with some growth in their revenue is the cloud stuff.
It's not enough to piss on companies, you kinda need to make sense too when you do it and that was sorely missing in the OP post.
Yes, duh! (Score:2)
Oracle is going to make a ton of money selling user tracking databases.
Really? Oracle master plan is to crush net neutrality so they can sell more database licenses to "track users"?
Yes, as you said, duh. Do you recall when Oracle billed California for per-user database licenses based not on the number of users accessing the database but rather the number of citizens in the database?
What's next, Staples will jump in so they can sell more pens to Netflix who will sign a bunch of checks to ISP? How the fuck can people come up with such ridiculous theories is beyond me.
Given that super-realistic Netflix check-signing scenario you envisioned, I can see how it would be hard to imagine or assess the actual possibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that super-realistic Netflix check-signing scenario you envisioned, I can see how it would be hard to imagine or assess the actual possibilities.
Anyone who follows even remotely the tech industry knows that Oracle is trying to reinvent itself as a cloud player. Their position in this case is obviously linked to that, not to some retarded scheme to possibly sell fucking database licenses to some mysterious entity that would need it to milk customers.
It's clear that both Cisco and Oracle are fuckers. What's also clear is that people on this Net Neutrality topic are in the shoot first, think later mindset, as it's made quite obvious by those lame-ass d
Re: (Score:2)
It literally is a shame that 5 is as high as one can mod up a comment, because in seventeen words, you've summed up the entire point.
So I guess I'll just ask, which industry has the potential for more money? Those that depend on a NN-less or pro-NN world? I know there's not a technically correct answer to that question, but just wondering who's going to build the most clout to bribe, er lobby, our House members?
Re: (Score:2)
The curious thing about this stand-off is that if the content providers are right, and net neutrality really is necessary to ensure a level playing field in markets where competition between ISPs is insufficient, then they might not have to spend their money lobbying to the same degree. If heavy traffic users like Facebook and Netflix call the ISPs' bluff and make a public statement that under the new arrangements they will no longer offer access to their services via US ISPs that require additional fees to
Re: (Score:2)
Afaict the problem is threefold
1. there are many people in the US with exactly one reasonable option for broadband service
2. that option is often vertically integrated meaning if you want the broadband service you also have to take the ISP service.
3. many of those broadband providers are in the video distribution buisness as well as the broadband buisness.
So it doesn't matter who the user "blames", if the user can't get stable netflix streams they are probablly going to go elsewhere to satisfy.their desire
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that would be true if it were only Netflix, as there are other video streaming services. But if it started to be, say, Netflix and a couple of the other big streaming services and one or two social networks a household uses (which still work fine on everyone's phone) then it might be a different story.
Re: (Score:3)
No. I don't know what Oracle's angle is, but for Cisco, non-NN is a clear business win. NN doesn't require much more than dumb routers with a bit of QoS. Those are practically commodity devices, even at the ISP level. Non-NN service, however, requires DPI, and other intrusive analytical devices that will cost much more, require more service and upgrades, as demands and capability increase.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not THE beneficiaries. They are however likely to benefit - the primary beneficiaries remain the cable companies.
That said whenever a corporation makes a political statement you know for an absolute fact that the policy they are promoting will benefit them. Promoting a policy that will harm them would lead to being sued by shareholders and a policy that doesn't affect them they won't say anything at all about.
The only question is HOW will it benefit them.
Of course they never admit what they are do
also (Score:2)
Big companies tend to have the budgets to oursource their solutions to companies like oracle. Many entrenched fortune 500 companies use Oracle's horrid software databases to manage their tiem and effort reporting, etc... Small companies with stronger needs to have a competitive edge go with other cheaper smaller scale back office solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, I also just realised Oracle want to make their cloud platform successful.
Net neutrality stops them using money to make their competition slower than them.
Double Duh (Score:1)
Since consumers ALSO want traffic prioritized, this seems like a win-win - the actual technical people know it, the consumers know it, the only people that have not figure it out are the "techie" people of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you kidding? Even if there were a valid reason for prioritization, it will not be used for the customer's benefit. Prioritization will be used as a tool to impose artificial scarcity and extort customers.
Prioritization may be useful if fully under control of the customer, but it has no place on the open Internet, where it will inevitably lead to higher congestion and degraded best effort performance. Investing in bandwidth is both cheaper and provides more value.
Re: (Score:3)
To put it another way:
End-users pay for their access. They should have the right to control what goes in and out of their personal connection.
ISPs are paid to transfer data, and should no right to decide how that data is moved, other than dealing with technical realities of limited bandwidth (e.g. QoS).
Want the low jitter path or bandwidth or latency? (Score:2)
Cisco knows, because it's their entire business to know, that some flows need low jitter, and bandwidth isn't an issue (voip for example, 64Kbps bandwidth is plenty, any significant jitter is unacceptable). Other flows require high bandwidth, and don't care about jitter or latency (Netflix for example). Other flows need low latency, regardless of jitter (gaming for example). ISPs pay Cisco billions to deliver the type of flow you'll want for each application.
You can do almost nothing about any of those me
Some (most) http isn't video streaming (Score:2)
> Port throttling for all sources does that just fine. And if Comcast throttle http video, they either throttle their own VoD stream too, or they're committing a crime.
I think you just answered your own question. Most http requests, most port 80 flows, aren't video on demand. Therefore treating all http as if it were video means handling most of it *wrong*, creating a worse experience for the user. The delivery of a text-based site such as Slashdot has opposite performance metrics as pre-recorded video
Re:Double Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to be buying the positive message from telcos about rescinding net neutrality rules, and it resonates especially well with the "we hate government intervention" crowd. "No more rules that forbid us from making you a great offer". "Less rules means a fertile ground for innovative business". They don't see or understand the negative aspects. For instance: I don't agree that investing in bandwidth is cheaper; telcos hate net neutrality because it forces them to do exactly that. It is far cheaper to not invest in bandwidth and instead prioritize traffic in such a way that the popular services still come through at a good speed, to the detriment of anything less popular. A few people might grumble but as long as Netflix and Facebook still perform well, the masses won't object. In fact they will probably blame poor performance on the shitty server of whatever service they are trying to access.
Re: (Score:1)
Even so, customers do not always realise this. For example: people loved the recent offer from a European telco, where music streamed from Spotify and a few others to mobile phones would not be counted towards the monthly data allowance.
For the companies involved it is about profit as much as anything. It is similar to how smaller ISPs are wary about investing in under served areas, since if a big one finally gets off their arse (I'm looking at you AT&T.), then their investment goes in the toilet, because AT&T's intro pricing will wipe them out.
Basically the offers to let you stream certain services are not about making friends. The offers do two things. First they help them acquire customers. Sure it may cost them in the short
"Negative Aspects" (Score:1)
People seem to be buying the positive message from telcos about rescinding net neutrality rules, and it resonates especially well with the "we hate government intervention" crowd. "No more rules that forbid us from making you a great offer". "Less rules means a fertile ground for innovative business". They don't see or understand the negative aspects.
The thing is they WOULDN'T see the negative aspects, even if there were any...
But you are totally discounting the fact that BECAUSE of supposed "Network Neutra
Re:Double Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Double Duh (Score:4, Informative)
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE. Consumers are doubly harmed when the ISPs can sell higher prioritization to sources that can afford it (since that automatically creates the incentive for ISPs to deprioritize everything else to gridlock levels).
Only the latter is prohibited by net neutrality.
Incorrect to the Max (Score:1)
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE.
That statement is inherently stupid. As a consumer, I want Netflix traffic in my house to take priority over web traffic OR YOUTUBE VIDEO that kids might be watching.
Sounds like I want traffic prioritized by SOURCE. Sounds like MOST people would want the same thing.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE.
That statement is inherently stupid. As a consumer, I want Netflix traffic in my house to take priority over web traffic OR YOUTUBE VIDEO that kids might be watching.
Sounds like I want traffic prioritized by SOURCE. Sounds like MOST people would want the same thing.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. That's not the same thing.
If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse. Which would really be the same, your's over theirs.
Thanks for admitting to the validity of my point (Score:2)
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse.
Aha, so you ADMIT that people would reasonably want traffic prioritized by source!!! It's just a matter of figuring out which source takes priority at which time. But it is something that people WANT, and it is very reasonable, and net neutrality is trying to take away as a possibility.
But lets be reali
Re: (Score:1)
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse.
Aha, so you ADMIT that people would reasonably want traffic prioritized by source!!! It's just a matter of figuring out which source takes priority at which time. But it is something that people WANT, and it is very reasonable, and net neutrality is trying to take away as a possibility.
But lets be realistic. No one cares about shitty YouTube quality. They just want Netflix (and possibly HBO and a few other sources) without buffering.
I did not "admit" that people wanted priority by source. I pointed out that even YOU don't want priority by source.
You want your stuff to be faster than others stuff, for whatever site you happen to be using vs whatever site they're using. It's not the same thing.
ISPs already sell this difference. You can buy access at any speed they offer. If you buy 100 Mbps and others by 20 Mbps, they've sold you faster access than the other person.
I took your use of "that kids" to mean "other users of the network",
Re: (Score:2)
No problem your ISP has their own video on demand service that works much better.
What? You expect your own services you paid for to work well??! Pfft communist stay out of the free market.
ICMP is designed to be high priority less chatty for broadcasts as well as video by default as errors are less important over packet prioritization.
Re: (Score:2)
Customers may want their traffic prioritised, but they also want it to be their choice which traffic.
I wouldn't want Big Video Streaming Service paying for pipes so big compared to my VoIP provider it kills my phone calls when someone else in the house watches a video.
What I would want is to be able to pay as a customer to prioritise VoIP traffic for the provider of my choosing (or simply pay for neutral service and do the QoS myself on my own router)
Re: (Score:2)
Since each end user location (think individual home) has a single connection to the internet through a single ISP through which the occupants of that location may need to (per your example) concurrently play a streamed game, stream a movie, and make a VoiP call, how does that ISP realistically argue they can provide different quality and speed of connections to all members of the household at the same time?
That's the point of packet switching, of digital (Score:2)
Multiple flows over the same peice of copper is the entire POINT of digital communication and packet switching.
You realize of the packets and flows leaving your house don't go to the same destination. So why the *hell* would they be put into the same queues or policed the same way? Most of the work is done on flows (roughly tcp connections), not on physical network ports. So to use your example:
> concurrently play a streamed game, stream a movie, and make a VoiP call, how does that ISP
The game has pr
Re: (Score:2)
The intent of the law is so Big Company A doesn't pay Big Monopolistic ISP a bunch of money to prioritise their traffic over Little Company B, C and D.
It is the ISP customer who is supposed to be able to make that choice by paying for the level or type of service they want.
Without net neutrality, the cloud provider with the biggest pockets can stamp out their competition simply by paying to have their traffic made faster.
A big cloud provider who doesn't have anything better to offer than their competition,
Great intent. You *want* your voip packets delayed (Score:2)
Yeah that's the intent, and that's great.
Unfotunately, legislators don't know why users WANT their VOIP packets delayed.* They don't know network jitter from doing the jitterbug. So their chance of writing a law that a) Comcast can't find giant loopholes in and b) doesn't completely fuck up proper flow management is about 0%.
* If you deliver each VOIP packet as quickly as possible, when you say "do not call me" the person on the other end might hear "not me, do call".
Re: (Score:2)
* If a UDP packet for an RTP stream comes in out of order, it's timestamp and sequence numbers doesn't align so it's dropped. It doesn't get played in the wrong order.
I don't WANT my voip packets delayed. I don't want my ISP prioritising video streaming websites over my voip provider because the streaming sites have lots more money to spend.
True, dropped completely (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. So "do not call me" becomes "do call me". That can be avoided by processing a video packet (pr any other packet) ahead of the early voip packets. By delaying when necessary to minimize jitter, the voip doesn't drop out.
You know (Score:1)
some decision is wrong when Oracle/Larry Ellison decides to support that decision.
What's that the title of a movie? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah... whoever wins, we lose.
Time for a stock option call (Score:1)
This... is why I have stock in Juniper Networks and not Cisco. I have a moral compass that guides me when I survey the stock market. This is another reason I won't purchase stock in "One Raging Asshole Called Larry Ellison" as I refuse to pay for his lavish lifestyle as he tramples world+dog under his feet. Maybe someday the adage will change... "Nobody got fired for picking Cisco"
Peace out.
Cisco is a turd (Score:3)
It's finally getting to where I can sell it for a gain equal to my savings account.
I only own a little. It was part of my learning experience in the land of investing.
At least I won't lose money on it, after 15 years.
Sisco is crap.
Oracle is trying to preserve a day gone by. Rather than doing something new, they're sticking to the old business model
Sell your Oracle stock NOW!
Re:Cisco is a turd (Score:5, Funny)
I own Sisco stock. Bad investment.
It's finally getting to where I can sell it for a gain equal to my savings account.
I only own a little. It was part of my learning experience in the land of investing.
At least I won't lose money on it, after 15 years.
Sisco is crap.
Well, there's your mistake. You wanted Cisco stock, not Sisco.
Don't beat yourself up to badly others have made the same mistake [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless OP meant Sysco stock, which is a food service company with mediocre food except in their Asian Foods division (which they bought). Strangely, both have had relatively good performance over time. Cisco did tank a bit over 5 days when I checked, but over 5 years it still is pretty good growth.
Re: (Score:2)
I own Cisco. It's still far under performing.
I've learned my lessons. My small portfolio has far out performed all market baselines for the past 10 years.
Though I think I may need to sell a lot soon. The idiot in charge may cause a crash. Timing is the key.
Re: (Score:1)
> At least I won't lose money on it, after 15 years.
You're not going to be happy when you figure out just how a dollar 15 years ago is not the same as a dollar today.
Re: (Score:1)
shenanigans (Score:4, Insightful)
>Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service,
I don't know what "innovative network management technology" is except maybe some expensive Cisco hardware. But, QoS and net neutrality aren't incompatible. T-Mobile uses a variant where they will throttle your bandwidth after 30GB of data but only if the network is in heavy use where you are located. Which seems reasonable, unless they've changed the plan again.
Self-organizing scum (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fun, watching the scum self organize.
Hint: If you are ever on the same side of an issue as ATT, it's probably time to evaluate your life's choices to see where you went wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I would expect Uber to jump in on this topic as they have never before missed an opportunity to come in on the wrong side of an ethical issue..
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
Because without the ads, lots of the websites which are the reasons why people pay an ISP won't exist. Once there isn't enough content for people to want to use the internet anymore, they'll stop requiring your service as an ISP.
Re:They're not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
"Because the customers have already paid for their connection, and that Silicon Valley strawman has already paid for theirs. You're a dumb pipe. Carry the damn packets and stay in your lane."
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, that's really smug and really wrong at the same time. Let's break it down.
The bulk of your argument is simply based on a false premise. For heavy users, ISPs *already* throttle traffic, apply a (sometimes excessive) surcharge, or even disable the account. Net neutrality has nothing to do with that issue; net neutrality deals with prioritization and throttling among data sources *other* than the ISP's customers, such as granting NetFlix the "priviledge" of not being throttled to the point of uselessness
Re:They're not wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Because it's cheap, extremely profitable, and you ARE in the bandwidth business. If you don't want to be in the bandwidth business become a content provider. Oh wait, you are a content provider and no one wants it in the format you deliver it except for people over 70. Yeah, I am looking at you bundled cable TV with the super slow, super inefficient, space heater, cable box that changes channels slower than midgets running the 100-yard dash.
It's like asking, why would the electric company want to build out their network so we can all plug in electric cars?
It's because that is your business. You sell kilowatt hours.
If you don't want to be an INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, notice that last word PROVIDER, then get out and go back to selling your (sic) innovative content cable TV and VOIP service.
Cable, you had your shot, you blew it. Now you're just a dumb pipe. Innovate or die, but don't stand in the way of others innovating just because your network is conveniently bigger and you have lobbied for states to pass laws to keep your monopoly going. Ala, the no municipal broadband laws and taking federal FCC grants to build out your network for FREE, then trying to upcharge.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not ISPs. They do not exist in America. They are information services and advertising companies. They just happen to deliver data. Go look up the charters? Obama forced them to re-register as ISPs and now it is going back so net neutralities do not apply as no ISP exists in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a question: are you upset that the site/app you're reading/watching is using your bandwidth to serve ads to you?
If you're on a metered plan, you probably are.
Now take a step back (I know, it's hard) and pretend you're an ISP. Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
Because that's the entire definition of being an ISP, and Internet Service Provider.
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service? Maybe build something like an "AOL Network" or a "CompuServe Network", "Your Company's Closed System Network" and sell that instead. Maybe people will buy it, maybe they will not. But, it's NOT "Internet Service" anymore, it's something else.
Let's try something else: 2% of an ISPs base is using 85% of the upstream and downstream bandwidth for torrents. Can you throttle their traffic?
I'm sure a lot of people will say "don't oversell your bandwidth." Yeah sure, welcome to reality. But is it fair to let 2% of your subscribers screw the other 98% of your subscribers? Those 98% are paying customers of both you the ISP and, say, Netflix. Why can't you touch that 2%?
Is throttling a violation of the "net neutrality" regs? I'll bet you don't know, because you never read them. Try reading them. It's not hard.
QOS is fine. As long as it wasn't source based by applied to everyone. If you want to set bittorren
Most subscribers don't care about Internet (Score:2)
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service?
If providers called it an "online service" instead of an "Internet service", the average subscriber wouldn't notice nor care. They just want Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service?
If providers called it an "online service" instead of an "Internet service", the average subscriber wouldn't notice nor care. They just want Facebook.
Possible. I like to hope they would, but it's totally possible.
But, what it would do is hopefully break and void any Public Utility Commission agreement and impact access to the right of way. All those things were done to deliver "Internet Access" not just some walled garden "online service" only. Of course the only impact that might have is to lower the number of Internet providers people have access to from the current few to 0. :(
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Us Engineers are not the customers of Oracle, anyways.... Oracle's customers include companies such as ATT, Verizon, Comcast, ...... these companies don't stand to gain or lose significant numbers of customers based on their stance on any politicail issues. However, they can significantly strengthen their relationship with some of their largest customers by being a member of the anti-net-neutrality clique.
As for Cisco...... they profit when they sell overpriced silicon and software solutions for impl
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Cisco's and Oracle's customers are managers who then leave it up to the technology people to implement their latest mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
We engineers don't usually have the final say in the matter; it's often down to whatever deal the PHB worked out ( oh, flying to the islands this weekend, Mr PHB? Wonder who paid for that ).
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... (Score:2)
Let me guess... promisses of buying new equipment infrastructure is a great incentive to sell out, right?
F*ck Cisco. And I don't even have to say anything about Oracle, the litigious troll company. Oracle has to die in a pool of fire for the stuff they've been doing lately.
I can see driving investment but (Score:5, Insightful)
while enhancing the consumer experience
I'm dying to know how consumers benefit when you sell their private information. Please elaborate on this. Are you counting on them all being sadomasochists?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm dying to know how consumers benefit when you sell their private information. Please elaborate on this. Are you counting on them all being sadomasochists?
No. Exhibitionists.
Fox and Henhouse (Score:2)
...(Oracle) played up its "perspective as a Silicon Valley technology company," hammering the debate over the rules as a "highly political hyperbolic battle," that is "removed from technical, economic, and consumer reality"...
Translation: "We're a knowledgeable and trustworthy tech company, and we know better than even the tech sector workers who create our products and services, so you should listen to us, not them. We don't like it that so many of those workers support Net Neutrality, so we're trying to pull rank. We'll also pretend that we both know and care about 'consumer reality', (even though it's patently obvious we know nothing and couldn't care less), because we'll happily polish our stinking turd of a strategy until i
What you have here. (Score:1)
pot meet kettle (Score:2)
All sweetness and light now... (Score:2)
Just wait until someone starts lobbying to have 'golf course neutrality'. Once deals on the golf course have to have the same scrutiny as other deals, the likes of Cisco and Oracle will meet their demise.
I can see the value of both vendors products, but what I still don't get is why anyone buys more than a modicum of it. With Oracle, the DB is fine, but once you move to RAC then you're on the bandwagon and getting off it is very hard. You'd have been better off re-engineering out your legacy when you outgre
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco is a harder nut to crack - no one would dare go up against them, but yet, if someone did, we'd all be better off as a result.
You make Juniper very sad. Also Brocade Communications, who acquired Foundry Networks. Hell, even HP and Huawei sell enterprise routers. And the backdoor in Huawei routers for the Chinese government is no worse than the NSA backdoor in Cisco gear.
As others have said repeatedly in this thread, "enterprise" switch gear really is a commodity at this point. Not precisely a cheap commodity, since their customers are primarily businesses so they charge all the traffic will bear, but still. Cisco is far from
This is a good thing (Score:1)
As a former Oracle Engineer (Score:3)
And before that, a contractor to CISCO - trust me, whatever side these companies are on, on any issue, is never the side that you should support. These companies evil incorporated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is that set of rules that allow bicycles to share the roads with cars. Without those rules, road providers would certainly limit their roads to delivery vehicles and charge them for access. Sure, cyclists could pay those fees to gain access as well, but would quickly be priced out of the market.
Your entire post argues for the existance of Net Neutrality.