I don’t get the whole ‘universality’ thing. Maybe its his background in physics, but even though he does a good job of describing what he means by it, i still dont see the need in adding additional jargon to the topic of network neutrality. Especially when it adds nothing new to the debate.

But besides that, the rather lengthy article does a good job of describing the state of play in network neutrality from Sir Tims perspective.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web

I am glad he makes effort to describe the difference of the WWW and the Internet. Neutrality is needed on a Internet Protocol level, with the WWW simply being the most popular application on IP at the moment.

Emphasis on the decentralised nature of the internet with respect to openness and specifically open standards is welcomed, and proves a sound foundation for justifying the need for network neutrality. The article has a slant towards linked data, but thats to be expected.

Sir Tim targets monopolies such as facebook and itunes for hijacking open standards and then creating closed ‘walled gardens’. He also criticises smart phone applications, and suggests while they are suitable now they will ultimately fail as a result of their closed nature.

I tend to agree with most points he makes, its a worthwhile read.

Advertisements