is monitoring the conduct in question and has exhibited some willingness to step to curb any anticompetitive conduct that may occur. An intermediate reading would undertake a more specific assessment of the impact of the steps the agency has taken. It is too soon to say with any certainty which of these positions will eventually emerge as the enduring reading of Trinko, with the early lower court decisions evincing some desire to strike a middle ground. The importance of how broadly to read Trinko is underscored when one considers how it would apply to one of the most hotly debated issues of the last Congress: network neutrality. As discussed in Chapter 10 in some detail, the FCC possesses general authority to regulate broadband networks, is currently monitoring market developments, and has stated that it stands ready to intervene should anticompetitive conduct emerge. It is not yet clear whether that level of agency activity will prove sufficient to forestall antitrust 96 Salop (2006); Covad Commc'ns Co. V. Bell Atl. Corp., 398 F.3d 666, 671-75 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Covad Commc'ns Co. V. BellSouth Corp., 374 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (11th Cir. 2004); Linkline Commc'ns, Inc. V. SBC Cal., Inc., 503 F.3d 876, 881-5 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1137 (2008); Z-Tel Commc'ns, Inc. V. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 331 F. Supp. 2d 513, 535-43 (E.D. Tex. 2004). Antitrust as Applied to Network Industries claims seeking access to last-mile broadband networks. Until that issue is resolved, courts may well be willing to entertain claims that a telecommunications company's refusal to provide other firms with access to its networks violates the antitrust laws. D. The Different Types of Access under Antitrust Law The real possibility that antitrust law will continue to serve as a basis for compelling access to telecommunications networks counsels in favor of plumbing the Trinko opinion for additional indications about precisely how antitrust law might apply. The existing commentary has largely overlooked the fact that the Trinko opini