[LINK] Microsoft slams local data centre edict

[Richard Chirgwin]

On 25/11/11 11:05 AM, Glen Turner wrote:
>> So it appears that a contract can set the terms of the jurisdiction.
> You are assuming the breach is a matter for civil litigation rather than
> criminal prosecution or coronial investigation.
>
> BTW, an offshore data centre would more likely be in Singapore rather
> than in the USA.
>
> I'm with Richard's view, as there's a wide understanding that Microsoft
> have a policy of limiting the number of costly data centres, that the
> Asia-Pacific data centre is in Singapore, and that a Australia data
> centre would run counter to this corporate policy. Rather than fight
> Microsoft's management the submission author obviously decided to fight
> the issuing department instead -- after all, nothing to lose, much to
> gain. All it has taken is a few carefully written paras in a submission
> ("will not necessarily", "arguably", ...) and a briefing of a
> journalist.
>
Would a max latency of 50 milliseconds be regarded as a reasonable 
technical specification for a cloud application? :-)

RC