3 ms·
A government contract where the sole company that can ever win the contract also says that fail overs to other providers is bad. So if Amazon goes down, the DoD
by partiallypro 8y ago
A government contract where the sole company that can ever win the contract also says that fail overs to other providers is bad. So if Amazon goes down, the DoD is shit out of luck. I don't see how that's not a national security problem. Not only that, but after the $10 Billion is expended the DoD is vendor locked. How people don't see this as a major problem/cronyism is baffling. The vendor lock itself is bad enough.
- deadbunny 8y agoHows it any different from every other single provider contract ever? Everything's in an IBM DC (or three), they fuck something up? It's down.
- partiallypro 8y agoBecause in this case it relates to national security and if the provider goes down the US is potentially at more risk than it would have been if it had multi-vendor fail overs. I can understand it not being justified for some government programs or companies due to expense or impracticality, but the DoD has a massive budget and a huge pool of resources. Not having multi-vendor fail overs just seems irresponsible given the stakes.
- deadbunny 8y agoBasically every mil contract is single provider. Doesn't matter who the provider.
- partiallypro 8y agoHaving a single provider of Lockheed for 1 jet is different than an entire infrastructure that can fail.