I've spent the past week writing a piece for our global sector product, and putting together slide packs for clients, on the emerging issue of net fragmentation. Being an ardent believer in the principals of net neutrality, and the idea that openness and interoperability eventually pay huge dividends, I feel very strongly about this issue. Nevertheless, each time I commit a line to paper/cyberspace, I'm seized by a feeling of doubt for a few seconds. Can it really be this bad? Am I not just being sensationalistic and paranoid? Luckily (is that really the appropriate adverb?), subsequent newsflow (in this case via a Platinum Club mega-uber value reader) invariably makes me feel better, well actually worse, but at least vindicated:
"Telephone networks are made up of regional, domestic networks united
together in agreement of the ITU framework. A similar situation may start
with the internet." (?)
Secret German working groups concerned with IP interconnect, yet not involving ISPs (with a couple of prominent exceptions)?
Calling Dr. Orwell, we're 21 years late, but the patient is finally ready:
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no
public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had
at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well
knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and
in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge
which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under
control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was
at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.
The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed
that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."