What about other communications protocols?
Telephone interconnection is mandated by law. For example, Texas law says:
Sec. 60.204. INTERCONNECTION. A telecommunications provider shall provide interconnection with other telecommunications
providers’ networks for the transmission and routing of telephone
exchange service and exchange access.
.
The law is needed because there are strong temptations for vendors not to interconnect. A very quick search suggests that legal requirements for interconnect go back to 1913/
Internet email standardized back when academic institutions were the primary users of the internet. This is very good — connectivity became universal. And bad — the protocols were very trusting, creating a medium for spam.
Fax was born from a standard. In the 1970s, the CCITT (now ITU) created a standard for digital fax that allowed the creation of an industry.
Thinking about these examples, the non-standardization of IM is an artifact of history and business model. IM is a free rider on top of the internet, and is offerered for free. Because the underlying network already exists, IM didn’t need the jumpstart of a standard in order to proliferate, unlike fax. Because IM is offered for free, it is only a minor inconvenience for end-users to connect to a contact, using whatever IM service that contact prefers. So far, the business IM market hasn’t been large enough to force standardization.
It seems plausible that IM will standardize someday. But the current situation could persist for a long time. Currency is an example of persistent lack of standards. There are well-established methods of currency exchange, so differing currencies don’t pose a huge barrier to commerce. And currency providers have a strong interest in controlling their stock of currency, since regional money supply is a tool by central banks used to steer the economy.
Just thinking out loud. It’s interesting how the patterns of standardization trace the social structure and power structure of the underlying community.
