at its regulatory takings decisions do not constitute precedent in cases involving physical takings (535 U.S. at 320-24 (internal quotation marks omitted)). B. Physical Takings Jurisprudence Applied to Network Access Determining whether a takings violation has occurred thus requires resolution of two separate questions. First, has the government action in question effected a taking? As the foregoing discussion underscores, the resolution of this question varies depending on whether the regulation at issue is alleged to be a physical taking. Second, has the government provided just compensation for its actions? Constitutional Limits on the Pricing of Access to Networks 1. Determining Whether a Taking Has Occurred In contrast to the analysis applied to both regulatory takings and confiscatory rate- making, which attempts to balance the interests of the public with those of the utility and which carefully examines the regulation's economic impact, physical takings are governed by a simple bright-line rule. As the Court held in Loretto and reaffirmed several times since, government action is a per se taking if it authorizes a permanent physical occupation, such as giving third parties the right to place telecommunications equipment on another person's property. This fact under- scores the constitutional significance of the shift from rate regulation to access regulation. If a permanent physical occupation occurs, it does not matter whether the action furthers an important public interest or achieves an important public benefit. Nor does the size or economic impact of the invasion matter. 19 Indeed, a permanent physical invasion constitutes a per se taking even if it increases the value of the property. The Court reasoned: "[This] conclusion [is] premised on our longstanding recognition that property is more than economic value; it also consists of 'the group of rights which the so-called owner exercises in his dominion of the physical thing,' such 'as the right to possess, use and dispose of it.' While the [property]