AWS Wins 5-year, $700M+ Contract for Cloud Services To US Navy (theregister.com) 25
Amazon Web Services has secured a five-year contract with the US Navy for cloud services, just weeks after scoring its share of a major US Department of Defense deal for cloud computing. From a report: The cloud division of online marketplace Amazon has been awarded a contract worth $723.9 million by the Department of the Navy as a single-award fixed-price enterprise software license blanket purchase agreement. The details were disclosed in a contract notice posted on the Department of Defense website. According to the notice, the agreement is for AWS to provide the Department of the Navy with access to its commercial cloud environment, Professional Services, and AWS training and certification courses. The Department of the Navy indicated that the purchase agreement will not obligate funds at the time of award, but instead these will be committed as task orders are issued using a variety of Navy funding types, including operation and maintenance and working capital funds.
enterprise software license blanket so all worksti (Score:2)
enterprise software license blanket so all workstations can have it installed with no software piracy issues
Re: enterprise software license blanket so all wor (Score:3)
You know AWS provide cloud services, not desktop software?
Re: (Score:2)
you know that is an joke based on an older story
5-year contract uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vendor lock-in virtually ensures this contract will be renewed forever. Because migrating all that data to another cloud provider and adapting their services to another cloud API will inevitably cost more than what Amazon will charge to just stick with them.
Sigh... I with the US military invested in their own IT infrastructure instead of creating pork for private companies: not only will taxpayer's money be wasted in the long run, it's also disturbing that they deem it acceptable to entrust 3rd parties with their highly-sensitive data and IT processes.
Re: 5-year contract uh? (Score:1)
So a closed federal/state extranet? Intreguing opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
So a closed federal/state extranet? Intreguing opinion.
Not federal/state. Military/Intelligence. DSIN and SIPRNet have been around for a long time; see the links in my reply to the OP.
Re: 5-year contract uh? (Score:1)
A cloud infrastructure in that mind will extend to endpoints/services within state jurisdiction? What is murky is how the public commercial cloud will be seperate and how any private corporate entity will provide that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're making this more complicated than it actually is. It's extremely doubtful that the Navy intends to put classified data on AWS; that's what SIPRNet is for. Go read TFA (1st link in TFS).
Re: (Score:2)
There is Classified AWS [amazon.com]. Also Azure Government Top Secret [microsoft.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What's so intriguing about it? The US military industrial complex has this habit of making taxpayer's money rain on countless private suppliers when they could, in many instances, do their own thing at cost.
But at least when they have firearms or aircraft parts made by one company, it's easy enough to select and activate alternative suppliers and make competition work for them. In the case of IT though, once they invest in one cloud provider, it's game over. It's almost impossible to change later, and the c
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh... I with the US military invested in their own IT infrastructure instead of creating pork for private companies: not only will taxpayer's money be wasted in the long run, it's also disturbing that they deem it acceptable to entrust 3rd parties with their highly-sensitive data and IT processes.
Your wish came true long before you even thought of it. The Defense Information System Network (DISN) [wikipedia.org] has been the United States Department of Defense's enterprise telecommunications network for providing data, video, and voice services for 40 years. It's highly unlikely that anything sensitive enough to be classified Confidential or higher will end up on AWS -- at least, not on purpose. The military has SIPRNet [wikipedia.org] for that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:1)
They treat them as a separate region, so once you connect the various tools all work.
Re: (Score:2)
AWS has a classified cloud host as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, the government has sucked at implementing *and maintaining* its own systems. They moved away from their own perpetually out of date infra. Unloading the infra part to a contractor seems like it could be a win in this instance.
Re: (Score:2)
We can thank the conservatives for that. It started with Reagan who thought it would be really neat to fund the beltway bandits because "government was the problem". So when the Pentagon wanted to fund their own IT infrastructure, Congress and those blessed conservatives would whine, bitch, and moan about how they weren't thinking of the "little guy" and get the money siphoned off to the beltway bandits. Then big IT companies took notice and conservatives welcomed them and their campaign cash, cushy revolvi
Re: 5-year contract uh? (Score:1)
The whining-about-workingfromhome-crowd expects just that treatment and I wish I could just blame conservatism or reaganism for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... I figured that the US Navy's IT needs would be bigger than that. I work at a relatively small healthcare IT firm, and 5 years of AWS hosting would cost us north of 10 million dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
They’re also paying Microsoft for Office365 and this is also only part of their likely expenses.
meanwhile... (Score:2)
Good old Uncle Sam, cutting a check to Bezos Inc. while a whole mess of signal platoons full of 25Bs and 25Us are busying themselves with sweeping the LTs office and policing up cigarette butts.
lets privatize the government (Score:2)
and share our private data with big corps
To be fair AWS is the only decent provider (Score:1)
US soil? (Score:2)
Has Amazon guaranteed that US military data will *only* be on US soil, and never moved anywhere else?