 granting UNE access to them would deter investment in a nascent market. The FCC did permit UNE access to DSLAMs located in remote terminals that were too small to permit physical collocation (FCC 1999g). In 2000, the D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC's decision permitting the collo- cation of multifunction equipment as a violation of the statutory provision autho- rizing collocation only if "necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements" (GTE Serv. Corp. V. FCC, 205 F.3d 416, 422-24 (D.C. Cir. 2000), quoting 47 U.S.C. $ 251(c)(6)). In response, the FCC revised its rules in 2001 to limit collocation of multifunction equipment to equipment whose primary pur- pose is to provide the requesting carrier either with interconnection that is "equal in quality" to that provided by the incumbent LEC for its own services or with "nondiscriminatory access" to an unbundled network element, a revision that sur- vived judicial review (FCC 2001e). These revisions to the collocation rules were sufficient to survive judicial scrutiny (Verizon Tel. Cos. V. FCC, 292 F.3d 903 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). These judicial decisions led the FCC to retreat from extending the regula- tory regime applicable to conventional telephone service to DSL and other wireline broadband technologies. In 2002, shortly before adopting its Cable Modem Declara- tory Ruling, the FCC issued its Wireline Broadband NPRM, which tentatively con- cluded that DSL and other broadband services provided by local telephone com- panies constituted "information services" that were not subject to the tariffing and common carriage requirements of Title II. At the same time, the FCC sought com- ment on whether changes in technology and the competitive environment justified modifying or eliminating the regulatory regime it had created under its general Title I authority in its Computer Inquiries (FCC 2002b). Later in 2002, the FCC detariffed DSL services that SBC offered through its separate subsidiary (FCC 2002e). The Regulation of Last-Mile Broadband Network