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

[Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>]

I certainly agree that incremental improvements are better than the current
status quo.

Hesham

On Sat, May 6, 2023, 7:04 AM Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I agree that neither technical nor legal solutions will likely solve the
> underlying problem completely or for all time. But that's the nature of
> most non-trivial problems other than math assignments. I'm in the "aim for
> incremental improvements compared to the status quo" party.
>
> Henning
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:15 PM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_architecture-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIDaQ&c=009klHSCxuh5AI1vNQzSO0KGjl4nbi2Q0M1QLJX9BeE&r=an13D03Wkt_XCHvUEPar0wASef4dPIUx8hC4vYI0ROE&m=xAJZPS6clxZM3Zcu1fLN8_oS55Qc8911Z0135eqlE1qG3JS-C1sao3HyBHhPRY_y&s=K7H3AkqybqV8QeRMgUSvz6P56_Ap3702mKT3IiHa4qQ&e=
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> [e-mail]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>