Net neutrality debate heats up on Capitol Hill: A public comment period for Federal Communications Commission rules changes that would roll back net neutrality has been ongoing since May and will end on Aug. 17. Now, as the deadline approaches, a group of congressmen have submitted a lengthy missive of their own that blasts the proposed changes. It's 20 pages long and available at this link, but here are a few of the key points:
Since we voted for the Telecommunications Act in 1996, Americans rejected the curated internet services in favor of an open platform. Now, anyone with a subscription to an ISP can get access to any legal website or application of their choice. Americans’ ISPs no longer pick and choose what online services their customers can access.
While the technology has changed, the policies to which we agreed have remained firm—the law still directs the FCC to look at the network infrastructure carrying data as distinct from the services that create the data. Using today’s technology that means the law directs the FCC to look at ISP services as distinct from those services that ride over the networks.
The FCC’s proposal contravenes our intent—the FCC should tread carefully before interfering with content creation. While some may argue that this distinction should be abandoned because of changes in today ’s market, that choice is not the FCC’s to make.
POV: Net neutrality bans ISPs from blocking or slowing Internet traffic related to legal content, and in turn from favoring traffic based on payments or other considerations.
The FCC is led by chairman Ajit Pai, a staunch critic of net neutrality who says the rules go too far and are anti-competition. Meanwhile, the FCC's board has a Republican majority; all 10 congressmen who signed the new letter are Democrats, which symbolizes how the outcome of the net neutrality debate may fall on partisan lines.
That's not to say there isn't a chance for compromise, and enterprises—not just Internet companies such as Netflix and Google—should be concerned about the outcome amid macro trends such as IoT and cloud computing.
Microsoft lights up schedule for Ignite: Microsoft's Ignite conference kicks off next month and is typically a very newsworthy event. While the biggest announcements will likely be kept under wraps until the event, Microsoft has just opened up the online schedule builder for Ignite and a cruise through the session list reveals some interesting news nuggets. Here are a few highlights:
- A new version of the on-premises version of Skype for Business. "Learn where we are making investments in Skype for Business Server vNext and how to decide where Microsoft Teams, on-premises and hybrid play roles in meeting your strategic goals," the brief session description reads. (h/t to Mary Jo Foley of ZDNet.)
- An all-flash Azure Stack appliance based on Intel Xeon processors. There will also be a session outlining a number of customer use cases for Azure Stack, which brings the software from Microsoft's Azure cloud on-premises.
- Details on how customers have moved Dynamics GP and Dynamics NAV ERP implementations from on-premises to Azure.
- Heavy emphasis on IoT and AI. There are currently about 20 sessions at Ignite related in various ways to IoT, and no fewer than 56 touching upon AI. It's safe to say both will be high-level themes during Ignite's keynotes.
POV: Ignite dates to 2015, when Microsoft combined a number of conferences geared toward IT professionals into a single event. Along with the business-user oriented Envision, which happens earlier in the year, Ignite is a must-see-or-attend event for anyone with an interest in Microsoft's enterprise products.
After criticism, Apple embracing standards for more powerful web apps: A Philadelphia web developer's impassioned critique may have influenced Apple's decision to support "service workers," a core component of Progressive Web Applications, the standard backed by Google, Mozilla, Opera and Microsoft. Service workers are written in JavaScript and make web apps faster and more responsive, as well as the type of features enjoyed by native applications, such as push notifications.
Apple has been largely silent on the topic of PWAs until recently. On July 24, developer Greg Blass wrote a lengthy blog that ended up going viral. In the post, he drew a stern conclusion: "Apple treats web apps like second class citizens because they don’t generate money like native apps in the app store."
But now, service workers have shown up as under development in WebKit, the open source engine that underpins Apple's Safari browser. It's not clear when the feature will become GA, but it's officially on the roadmap.
POV: Other indications are that Blass's blog wasn't the key driver for Apple's change of heart, but whatever the reason, its move to support PWAs more explicitly is a good thing for enterprises. In many cases, a web app can fulfill the purpose of a particular project as well as a native app, freeing up time and money for additional feature development instead of maintaining multiple code bases for native mobile apps. Safari remains a relevant browser, particularly for Apple tablet users, and its embrace of PWAs will fill a hole in the landscape.
Legacy watch: Software update enabled money laundering scheme at Aussie bank: AUSTRAC, Australia's financial regulator, is set to level potentially massive legal fines on the country's Commonwealth Bank after uncovering $77 million in ATM transactions related to a money laundering scheme. The agency alleges that the bank failed to take proper measures even after detecting suspected money-laundering activities, as well as provide reports back to AUSTRAC regarding thousands of transactions larger than $10,000.
Commonwealth Bank issued a statement this week saying that the ATMs are working properly now, and blaming the shortcomings on an "unrelated software update" applied in late 2012. Our Intelligent Deposit Machines (IDMs) are now providing the correct Threshold Transaction Reports (TTRs) to AUSTRAC, and have been since September 2015:
This error became apparent in 2015 and within a month of discovering it, we notified AUSTRAC, delivered the missing TTRs and fixed the coding issue. The vast majority of the reporting failures alleged in the statement of claim (approximately 53,000) relate specifically to this coding error. We recognise that there are other serious allegations in the claim unrelated to the TTRs.
In an organisation as large as Commonwealth Bank, mistakes can be made. We know that because we are a big organisation, these mistakes can have significant impact.
POV: Indeed, they can, particularly in the case of AUSTRAC. As the Register notes, each violation of the reporting failure can result in an AUS$18 million fine. Depending on how many are ultimately levied, Commonwealth Bank could be brought to its knees.