ions as DSL can provide sufficient discipline on cable modem providers. 43 This conclu- sion rests in uneasy tension with Lessig's faith in unlimited bandwidth as a solution to the problems of network management. Even more importantly, it is far from clear that concentration represents the threat that Lessig suggests once the precise markets that network neutrality is designed to protect have been identified. 44 The concentration is most acute in the market in which last-mile broadband providers bargain with end users. As noted earlier, preventing owners of last-mile tech- nologies from entering into exclusivity arrangements and forcing them to employ nonproprietary protocols that permit complete interoperability would not affect this market one iota. The economic relationship between last-mile providers and end users is largely determined by the fact that most end users currently only have two options in terms of last-mile providers: the cable company and the telephone company. Mandated network neutrality would not change the makeup of this market. Imposing network neutrality would have a significant impact on the upstream market in which last-mile providers bargain with providers of applications and content. Major Web-based providers, such as Amazon.com or eBay, are focused more on the total number of customers they are able to reach nationwide than they are on their ability to reach customers located in any specific metropolitan area. The fact that they may be unable to reach certain customers is of no greater concern, however, than the fact that manufacturers of particular brands of cars, shoes, or other conventional goods are not always able to gain distribution in all parts of the country. Manufacturers who are cut off from consumers served by a particular cable or telephone company should not face significant problems SO long as they are able to obtain access to a sufficient number of customers located elsewhere (Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1131-32). The FCC has similarly rejected the notion that the local ma