NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ NNSquad ] Re: Berry vs. Brett - Apologies to Brett.
Mr. Glass, Please accept my apologies for brashly beating you about the head and body over a message that wasn't meant for the forum. I only read the digests, and found the inclusion of your message to be counterproductive to the purpose of the forum. It seems that perhaps I should refine my statement regarding the adverse effect of automatic updating by the general Internet populace. I apologize not for what I said, but only for misinterpreting the context your message was given, and for suggesting that you were opening your complaint to the NNSquad forum, when no such intent had been made. I believe we agree that your issues with Microsoft and/or Akamai are between you and them. Please accept my wishes for your success in your dealings with them. Humbly, David Berry [ OK gang, let's back up a couple of notches and try get things into context. First, as I noted -- and as should have been obvious from the original message -- I forwarded Brett's message regarding the Microsoft Update "DDoS" issue to NNSquad from its public posting on Dave Farber's IP, because I felt (and still feel) that Brett raises a valid point about the effects that these autonomous updating systems (or other similar downloading systems) may have on networks. This is not a trivial problem to solve, especially give that network topology information that might be useful in terms of scheduling the staged downloading of such materials is not typically available to outside entities. It can be argued that in some cases P2P technologies might be valuable in such cases, to the extent that they would avoid the transmitting of duplicate information through sometimes expensive ISP connection points. Brett's complaint that Akamai, etc. won't deal with him is also valid, but at this stage of the game is purely a business decision on the part of Akamai. In a more regulated Internet environment such essentially technical decisions might more rightly be made on a technical basis, as would also likely be the case in most government-sponsored national Internet networks. This brings us to the crux of the matter. Brett has legitimate complaints about how his relatively small WISP is treated by larger Internet entities. But the only likely practical solution to these problems would entail a degree of regulatory oversight and government involvement that Brett rejects (that is, Brett's stated public position is that any regulatory involvement should be extremely narrow, focused on his specific category of concerns). Many observers would argue that it's impossible to have it both ways. If an ISP insists on a "keep your hands off my business" approach, and only accept the necessity of regulation that matches their perceived needs, a basically intractable situation is created, and emotions run high as a result. The likely paths out of this dilemma are not entirely clear given the current technical and political realities. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]