 protocols in ways that target subsegments of the potential customer base can allow networks to generate suffi- cient revenue to cover costs, notwithstanding their lower sales volumes and higher per-unit costs. It is conceivable that three different networks could coexist: one optimized for traditional Internet applications such as e-mail and Web site access, another for security-sensitive applications such as e-commerce, and a third for time-sensitive applications such as VoIP. By mandating adherence to standardized protocols, platform access can forestall the process by which multiple competitors might emerge. Platform access also affects the way that networks are configured. The precise location of the points of interface within the network must be determined before the standardized interfaces can be designed. Platform access in effect requires network owners to design their networks to provide service at those interface points according to the relevant standards. The problem is that technological change often causes the optimal interface design as well as the optimal location of the interface points to change over time. Indeed, the inevitable attempts by network providers to shift the points of interconnection in ways that enlarge the scope of services that they provide can represent a valuable source of competition (Bresnahan 1999). By dictating the protocols and locations, platform access can short-circuit the process of network reconfiguration by effectively locking the existing interfaces into place. At best, the natural evolution of network configuration will be delayed. At worst, platform access will preempt the process altogether and prevent innovation. This danger of an adverse impact on network configuration becomes particu- larly apparent once it is acknowledged that standard setting is an inherently political process. Whether implemented by the government, consortia of industry partici- pants, or independent standard-setting organizations (ISOs), standard-setting pro- cesses have long been subject 