utions that focus on dynamic efficiency have built-in exit strategies embedded within them. Once a sufficient number of broadband net- work platforms exist, regulatory intervention will no longer be necessary. Fostering entry and then deregulating once it has occurred seems to be a better ambition for regulatory policy than committing to the ongoing supervision of both the price and nonprice terms of business relationships that network neutrality implies. Ultimately, network diversity does not depend upon a definitive resolution of the best substantive outcome. It adopts a humbler stance toward policymakers' ability to determine the competitive impact of particular practices and to anticipate technological change. Network diversity is not simply the mirror image of network neutrality, in that it does not call for the imposition of proprietary protocols. Instead, it adopts a more modest position that permits the experimentation upon which economic progress depends to proceed until a practice's actual impact can be determined. Networks in Telecommunications There can be no question that network neutrality holds considerable allure. The vision of a world in which every end user can obtain access to every available appli- cation and piece of information is quite compelling. It is thus quite understandable that SO many commentators have endorsed network neutrality as a concept. The eco- nomic advantages of interoperability are considerable, and interoperability would likely play a central role in the business plans of the vast majority of Internet-based businesses. The question that must be asked is not whether network neutrality yields benefits, but rather whether the threat posed by a single network owner deviating from network neutrality is SO great that regulators should prohibit it from exploring whether network diversity might make more sense. The foregoing exploration of the arguments underlying network neutrality provides substantial reason for caution. Standardization can reduce welfare both by reducing diver