s perspective, mandating network neutrality is unnec- essary at best and counterproductive at worst. If innovation is better promoted by open architectures, network owners can be expected to embrace network neutrality voluntarily, in which case regulatory intervention will be unnecessary. If innovation is better promoted by closed architectures, mandating network neutrality will only serve to frustrate the very goals that network neutrality would purport to promote. 33 Speta (2000); Yoo (2002); Benjamin (2003); Farrell and Weiser (2003). Conclusion From the very beginnings of the telephone and telegraph industries, the evolution of the communications sector has fundamentally transformed social and economic relations. Virtually all collaborative work within and between organizations depends on electronic interaction. Personal communications have moved beyond simple voice communications to encompass e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging, and online virtual communities. Electronic commerce is no longer a separate cate- gory, because practically all business transactions use electronic communications, including retail, wholesale, inventories, procurement, and manufacturing. Mobile communications using computers, phones, planners, and other devices have made every individual a node in the network. The communications system is now central to every form of economic activity, including purchases, payments, music, images, video, music, entertainment, marketing, and search. Although much public policy continues to reflect the traditional approach to telecommunications, the evolution of communications has caused some changes in the regulatory framework. The primary focus of regulatory policy in telecom- munications has shifted from traditional rate regulation, which regulates the terms under which final goods are provided to end customers, to mandated access, which regulates the terms under which network services are provided to competitors. This regulatory change, as exemplified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 an