Is it just me, or does it seem a little hypocritical for the NYT to be lecturing others about "net neutrality" and insuring that the Internet "remain(s) free, and freely evolving?" The hypocrisy is that the NYT itself has walled off vast areas of its own content which use to be "free" and still is if you go to the library, make a copy and put it in your scrap book. So let's include in the definition of net neutrality the provision that if it's published openly anywhere at any time, and Brewster Kahle for example puts it in his Internet Archive, then its subject to net neutrality and free forever and the NYT can't make "profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices" and can't determine "which sites and methodologies succeed and fail" for its own content.
The Evolving Internet: A look ahead to 2025 by Cisco and the Monitor Group's Global Business Network
My employer (Cisco) published its most recent forward looking study of the Internet today. It's called " The Evolving Internet: A look ahead to 2025 by Cisco and the Monitor Group's Global Business Network " and although I haven't studied it in detail yet, I scanned it this morning and I liked what I saw. Those who know me will not be surprised that I particularly liked the three dimensional evaluation criteria that they used to frame their analysis. Lately nearly everything I do ends up finding its way into some sort of analytical cube like this. I've been wondering whether there is something wrong with me that I can't seem to frame things simply in two dimensions. Glad to have company.
Comments