lped foster the rise of not only the New Economy but the Internet Society as well." Reed E. Hundt, You Say You Want a Revolution: A Story of Information Age Politics (Yale University Press, 2000), p. X. 4. As this book goes to press, the courts are reining in the regulators. The most recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. Telecom Industry Association, et al. V. FCC and USA, No. 00-1012, D.C. Cir. 2004, essentially ends the most ambitious of the regulators' attempts to promote "competition" through aggressive network-sharing requirements. See the discussion in chapters 2 and 4. 5. For the most stunning evidence of this failure, see the FCC's February 20, 2003, deci- sion on the most important regulatory issue that has arisen in implementing the 1996 act, the network-sharing rules. The five members disagreed openly on virtually every detail in this proceeding and hence delayed the publication of their decision by more than six months, creating enormous uncertainty in the industry. Even the chairman dissented from much of the FCC's final decision in this matter, which has now been reversed by the appel- late court decision cited in fn. 4. Notes to Pages 2-8 6. This regulatory history is detailed in Robert W. Crandall and Leonard Waverman, Talk Is Cheap: The Promise of Regulatory Reform in North American Telecommunications (Brookings, 1995). 7. Robert W. Crandall and Leonard Waverman, Who Pays for Universal Service? When Telephone Subsidies Become Transparent (Brookings, 2000). 8. Ibid. 9. Hong Kong launched its network "unbundling" policy in 1995, one year before the United States made it a national policy. 10. The first example of such a change occurred in New Zealand, where the Commerce Commission recently rejected a similar policy largely because these policies did not appear to be working in the United States or other countries. New Zealand Commerce Commis- sion, Telecommunications Act 2001, Section 64 Review and Schedule 3 Investigation into Unbundling the Local Loop Network and the Fixed Public Dat