 and sinks. The reduction of available capacity at critical links in the network will affect the network's maximum flow. Thus, UNE access can impose costs on the host network that extend well beyond the elements that are affected. In some cases, the costs of UNE access may even exceed interconnection costs. If usage patterns associated with interconnection are similar to those of the incumbent LEC's own traffic, absent any capacity constraints, there will be less of an impact on the network owner's decisions about network configuration. There will be no change in the network elements that compose the minimum cut and, thus, in the components that constitute bottlenecks. The situation is quite different when usage patterns associated with interconnection differ from the patterns of the incumbent's own traffic. When that is the case, granting access to critical UNEs can create bottlenecks where none previously existed and can have a dramatic impact on the network's maximum flow. Under these circumstances, UNE access can have a dramatic impact on the cost, capacity, and configuration of networks. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the 1996 Act obligates the network owner to permit unbundled access "at any technically feasible point" (47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)). The introduction of traffic flows at disaggregated points chosen by competitors deep in the heart of the network where such traffic would not otherwise occur also has a much greater potential to cause discontinuous and unpredictable disruptions to the network than other forms of access. In addition, unbundled access increases transaction costs to a greater degree than other forms of access. For example, a network owner attempting to manage its network will need a great deal of information about the magnitude, timing, and variability of traffic associated with each element to which unbundled access is sought. The fact that much of the traffic will originate and be transmitted in part under other networks' control places much of this information outside