The main difference between Carterfone and 629 was channel. The PBX industry quickly built an independent distribution channel, which in turn was adapted into the VAR channel for the LAN industry. This channel provided compete networks with software and support.

The equivalent channel for set-top boxes is the Cable and Satellite companies. The Satellite channel was independent in 1996, but by the time the first CableCard box arrived there was no independent channel. (If you think BestBuy would be a good channel for CableCard, you didn’t read any of the Tivo message boards on Series 3.)

Another huge difference between Carterfone and 629 was that Part 68 had an independent party define a very simple open interface, and 629 had CableLabs (even though Congress specified an independent “standards body,” the FCC let the Cable companies write interface rules). There were several proposals that were far simpler, but CableLabs chose the most cumbersome technology available at the time.

Lastly, when the idea of separation for security and navigation was conceived, it was felt that multiple providers would be offering video services to subscriber (think cable plus Video Dialtone) and that interactive TV was right around the corner. In fact, in 1994, there were higher expectations that interactive TV shopping would be far greater than Internet e-commerce.

Tim Wu, I have spent thousands of hours working with mobile operators in the US, Europe and Asia on walled garden services. 1) There is a lot of truth to accusing them of holding back features to retard competition or more often get a kick-back from the service provider. 2) VoIP and WLAN are the worst examples to make your case with, because there are so many legitimate performance and support cost reasons to block them. 3) US operators are more open to 3rd party services (without demanding kick-backs) than the Europeans and the Japanese. The Europeans may appear more open to you because they do not subsidize phones and GSM/UMTS phones use interchangeable cards.

A few comments. First, I think efforts to open markets have a mixed story of success and failures. Its sometimes hard to know what going to work and what isn’t. For example, Carterfone and number portability and Computer II (which had Carterfone elements) were notable successes, to my mind. Some of the others, which TL focuses on, were arguably less successful.

That said, I there’s an imoprtant difference between the winner and loser examples. The winner examples are either easily understood, or tend to try and open the market to an entire vertical industry (e.g., carterfone, number portability, etc.). The loser examples tend to be trying to support competition in a place where it might otherwise not exist.

No one should doubt that the line between the two is hard to guess. But my guess is that the cell phone world is a world where entire industries want to do more, but are being bottlenecked by the carriers.

Second, to suggest abandoning open standards efforts because the carriers will resist too heavily is to simply surrender to lobbying permanently.

For example, say you think number portability rules are important. A counter argument might be, but no, the carriers will resist and drag out the process for years, therefore number portability rules are a bad idea.

Sometimes DC people argue that we shouldn’t have X rule because it will be complex, involve litigation, etc. etc. But those costs are not infinite; and sometimes the rule in question is worth it, despite the obvious costs to people close to the DC regulatory process.

For example, Cartferfone involved struggle, techical standards-making, etc. But the social benefits were arguably worth the candle — even if that isn’t obvious to someone who is just watching the process-costs.