X, 545 U.S. at 1001; FCC (2002b, 2003c). 25 See, e.g., Cabinet Committee on Cable Communications (1974); Webb (1983); Noam (1985). 26 Lamb Enters. V. Toledo Blade Co., 461 F.2d 506, 511 (6th Cir. 1972); Cmty. Commc'ns Corp. V. City of Boulder, 660 F.2d 1370, 1378-79 (10th Cir. 1981); Omega Satellite Prods. V. City of Indianapolis, 694 F.2d 119, 126 (7th Cir. 1982); Hopkinsville Cable TV, Inc. V. Pennyroyal Cablevision, Inc., 562 F. Supp. 543, 547 (W.D. Ky. 1982); Berkshire Cablevision of R.I., Inc. V. Burke, 571 F. Supp. 976, 985-86 (D.R.I. 1983); Erie Telecomms., Inc. V. City of Erie, 659 F. Supp. 580, 586 (W.D. Pa. 1987), aff'd, 853 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1988); see also Affiliated Capital Corp. V. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 1555, 1563 (5th Cir. 1984) (accepting as true the allegation that cable was a natural monopoly). The Regulation of Last-Mile Broadband Networks rate regulation27 and have debated whether some alternative institutional regime, such as franchise bidding, might redress any problems that might arise. 28 Some courts have followed suit, questioning whether cable was a natural monopoly.2 The three cases in which full trials were conducted on whether cable represents a natural monopoly split on the issue, with the first jury concluding that it was not a natural monopoly30 and the second and third juries drawing the opposite conclusion.3 Most importantly for our purposes, commentators began to suggest that inter- modal competition from broadcasters and local telephone companies might provide sufficient competition to vitiate cable's natural monopoly status. 32 Consistent with this insight, a provision of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 authorized the FCC to determine when cable operators face effective competition sufficient to justify eliminating rate regulation (Statutes at Large 1984, p. 2788). The FCC initially ruled that broadcasting could represent effective competition to cable sufficient to justify lifting rate regulation, while also ruling that cable operators faced effective competi