oadband facil- ities. Much of this discussion focuses on the need to curb potential "monop- oly power" even though the alleged monopolists-the local telephone com- panies-have only one-third of broadband subscribers. Indeed, there is still no evidence that any such power will develop given the competitive and technological struggle to deploy broadband services that now exists between cable companies, telephone carriers, and various wireless carriers. The Broadband Revolution This regulatory debate has raged for most of the nine years since the pas- sage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and is still not completely settled. As noted earlier, the incumbents' unbundling and line-sharing re- sponsibilities under the act have been reduced as the result of the FCC's 2003 Triennial Review decision released in August 2003 (see chapter 2). Numerous other issues also remain before the FCC, and, as a result, the threat of new or expanded regulatory programs could reduce the incentive to invest in facilities and content at the dawn of the broadband revolution. 22 Telephone Companies For the most part, the U.S. Congress and the FCC have articulated a "hands-off-the-Internet" policy. 23 Broadband is an important exception to this policy. Incumbent telephone companies (ILECs) face a number of restrictions that have carried over from their legacy as "dominant" providers of ordinary telephone services. Until recently, the FCC extended the unbundling requirements of the Telecommunications Act to elements required for broadband services. These obligations have applied not only to elements of the legacy net- work used to provide traditional voice services but also to parts of the net- work that are the result of new investments, which can be used to provide new services-even those that may not have been envisioned when the act was passed. Even though the FCC removed one of these responsibilities, "line sharing," in its August 2003 decision, the entire network un- bundling regime remains a source of considerable uncertainty. This un