to conform with the standard requires the network owner to confront the unattractive choice between either foregoing the benefits of the equipment's full functionality or deferring deployment until the equipment is reengineered to be compatible with the standard. In addition, consumer demand and technological improvements were pushing the industry "toward equipment that integrates information service and transmission capabilities in a manner that allows functions to be performed at multiple points within a broadband network and closer to the end user than ever before." The FCC warned that its "rules should not force technological development in another, less efficient direction" by insisting on the separation of functionality and transmission that platform access presumes (FCC 2005d, p. 14889). Platform access also impedes the network's ability to evolve to meet the needs of the increasingly heterogeneous demands of end users. As the FCC noted, The Regulation of Last-Mile Broadband Networks standardization hinders network owners' ability to respond to individual requests for new or modified features. Refusing to impose platform access would allow more technological innovation than the "cookie-cutter' common carrier offer- ings" implicit in any nondiscriminatory access mandate. Indeed, the FCC noted that the Computer Inquiries reflected "a fairly static picture of network develop- ment" in which innovation occurred at the network's edge or outside the network altogether and in which "a line could be drawn between the network functions and computer processing without impeding technological innovation." Policy should adapt to reflect the insight that "innovation can occur at all network points and at all network layers as well as in non-network applications and equipment" (FCC 2005d, pp. 14890, 14892, 14900). The FCC also expressed concern about how platform access increases trans- action costs. As an initial matter, the agency took seriously concerns expressed about "the inherent regulatory delay that occurs throug