Re: [arch-d] Splintering (fragmentation) vs Centralization vs Users

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Henning, interesting examples!

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 02:48:18PM -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> Antitrust actions in the technology space have involved interoperability
> and protocols. Three examples:
> 
> (1) The Microsoft 2001 settlement: "On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an
> agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement
> required Microsoft to *share its application programming interfaces with
> third-party companies a*nd appoint a panel of three people who would have
> full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years
> in order to ensure compliance." (Wikipedia)

That seems to have been an effort in futility given how the efforts for Wine have
shown that it continues to an almost impossible task of reverse engineering trying to build
a Microsoft free runtime for Applications written for Windows in general. Then again,
for a subset of applications, namely games, Valve seems to have been able to produce some good
results. But i wonder if/how that settlement had any impact on that history...

> (2) The Carterphone and similar decisions to spur CPE competition led to
> mandatory interoperability and compatibility rules codified in Part 68 (
> part68.org) of 47 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

And now with streaming services we do have complete vertical walled-gardens into the
(software) user application. After we had so many good experience with such "CPE"
standard interfaces enabling a healthy competition of consumer CPE...
(i made a jump from telephony to AV-media delivery here).

> (3) After 1996, various unbundled network interface specifications were
> created to allow competitive local exchange carriers to provide services
> via the incumbent's network.

But if i am not mistaken (not sure about USA side details, i experienced only the
european side) only on copper local loops because they originated from
earlier monopoly / public-funding. Coax/Cable local loop for example does not
have these regulations. Hance the uncompetitiveness in current markets when it
comes to coax.

And then there was also unbundling regulations in i think many countries, aka:
direct access to the raw copper. Which then was attempted to be circumvented by
incumbents by promoting technologies that do not support that level of unbundling
(vectoring).

> I suspect there are many more. They were all downstream from laws, court
> decisions, and regulatory actions.

Indeed. I would have expected the browser unbundling to be on top of any list ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless

> Henning
> 
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 1:38 PM David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On 5 May 2023, at 19:20, Tony Li wrote:
> >
> > Or, perhaps the IAB might want to consider whether or not economic
> > organization is within the scope of the Internet architecture.
> >
> > Trying to control the economic forces of the entire planet through a
> > series of RFCs seems quixotic, to say the least.
> >
> > Consolidation is part of the natural evolution of any market. Anti-trust
> > legislation has been necessary to ensure consumer protection, as no other
> > mechanisms have ever sufficed. Expecting that we can do better would seem
> > like an act of hubris.
> >
> > 100% agree, although it might be worth pondering if the IAB could provide
> > useful data and advice on the technical c consequences of postulated
> > anti-trust law/policy or regulations.
> >
> > Possibly…
> >
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


-- 
---
[e-mail]