[ NNSquad ] Re: Berry vs. Brett - Apologies to Brett.

[David Berry <ravenman@rocketmail.com>]

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 ]