[e2e] end of interest

David P. Reed dpreed at reed.com
Sat Apr 19 12:48:15 PDT 2008

Andrew - hello

Lachlan Andrew wrote:
>  AT&T wanted to regulate what
> other people did on AT&T's network, whereas the particular Major
> Company I was referring to is not telling other people what to do.  It
> is just refraining from itself deploying technology that it has found
> to give its customers grief (like ECN or Window Scaling packets being
> dropped).
I have no evidence that Major Company always refrains from seeking 
competitive advantage by using its power to decide what gets bundled 
with its OS and what is certified to go with its OS.

I note that AT&T always *claimed* it was "protecting the network from 
harm".  And the same argument is often used by the technical experts of 
Major Company in explaining why, for example, they have to "break" 
compatibility with software products of strong applications competitors, 
or why, for example, hardware vendors must NOT include bundled software 
alternatives to that provided by Major Company when offering their 
products in the marketplace.

It may even be true that there is a serious *risk* of harm.  However, 
the Major Company is not God, and is not required to protect its 
customers from choice and the consequent risks.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list