ed over the existing telecommunications network and that subscribers used existing voice- grade circuits to connect to it. Innovative applications, such as e-mail, could be developed to use the existing network and common, nonpropri- etary protocols, even by those who had no ownership interest in the net- work or contractual arrangements with its owners. At the outset, however, subscribers generally accessed the Internet through simple dial-up connections over mainly local fixed-wire telephone The Broadband Revolution systems under monopoly control. There were no cable modems, no 3-G wireless systems, no WiFi, and no fixed wireless systems available to would- be subscribers. Moreover, the fixed-wire Bell local telephone companies, over which subscribers connected to the Internet, were barred from com- munications between local access and transports areas (LATAs), making it impossible for them to offer Internet service. Because of these regulatory restrictions, they could not have redesigned the network and installed their own proprietary protocols to exploit opportunities for delivering their own applications or content over the Internet even if they had SO desired. Until cable modem service emerged and the Bell companies were freed from the interLATA restrictions, no one could disrupt the end-to-end principle. By default, it was associated with the success of the Internet. Surely it would have been better if the U.S. telecommunications net- work had been redesigned some time ago to provide higher speeds to users. Unfortunately, a widely diffused high-speed network did not exist in 1994 when the Internet began to grow rapidly, and there is no consensus even today on the most efficient design for such a broadband network or mul- tiplicity of networks. 34 Nevertheless, the end-to-end advocates continue to propose regulation of the network infrastructure, at least as far as preserving its common, open protocols and providing open access for all potential users of any network that develops. For example, in responding