vices and for Forbearance from Dominant Carrier Regulation of Those Services, FCC, 2001. 21. See Jung Hyun Kim, Johannes M. Bauer, and Steven S. Wildman, "Broadband Up- take in OECD Countries," paper presented at the 31st Research Conference on Communi- cations, Information and Internet Policy, Arlington, Va., September 2003. The authors find that the price of broadband has little effect on penetration across OECD countries. This may be because the data across the thirty countries in their sample are not comparable. 22. The FCC resolved one of the major issues in October 2004 when it announced it would forbear from requiring wholesale unbundling of facilities for broadband services under Section 271 of the 1996 act. FCC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket 01-338, WC Docket 03-235, WC Docket 03-260, WC Docket 04-48 (October 27, 2004). 23. This discussion is adapted from Robert W. Crandall, Robert W. Hahn, and Timo- thy J. Tardiff, "The Benefits of Broadband and the Effect of Regulation," in Robert W. Crandall and James Alleman, Broadband. See also Robert W. Crandall and Charles L. Jack- son, "The $500 Billion Opportunity: The Potential Economic Benefit of Widespread Dif- fusion of Broadband Internet Access," in Down to the Wire: Studies in the Diffusion and Reg- ulation of Telecommunications Technologies, edited by Allan Shampine (Haupaugge, N.Y.: Nova Science, 2003). 24. The most important source of this uncertainty is the potential for the FCC to invoke another provision of the 1996 act, section 271, to require network sharing that the courts have not allowed the FCC to mandate under Section 251. Section 271 involves the conditions required to allow the Bell companies to provide in-region interLATA services. Notes to Pages 121-126 25. FCC, In the Matters of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecom- munications Capability, Second Report and Order, CC Docket 98-147 (November 9, 1999), para. 21. Indeed, while ILECs are required to provide services to ISPs at regulated prices, the FCC has not e