e, but rather from a "technological humility" that permits exploration to proceed until policymakers can make a clearer assessment of the cost-benefit tradeoff. Although preserving the status quo might be preferable if allowing such experimentation would inflict irreversible and catastrophic harm, neither would seem to be the case with respect to network neutrality. In this sense, network diversity is not the mirror image of network neutrality, in that it does not call for the imposition of any mandatory obligations. Rather, network diversity adopts the more modest position that regards regulatory forbearance as the appropriate course of action when con- fronted with ambiguity. 1. Vertical Exclusion and Network Neutrality Regulations that compel access to bottleneck facilities are inherently about vertical exclusion. 10 That this is the case can easily be seen if the broadband industry is mapped onto the vertical chain of production that characterizes most industries (Yoo 2002). The initial stage is known as manufacturing and consists of the com- panies that create the products and services that end users actually consume. The final stage is known as retailing and is composed of the companies responsible for delivering those products and services to end users. Although it is theoretically possible for retailers to purchase products directly from manufacturers, in some cases logistical complications create the need for an intermediate stage between manufacturers and retailers. Firms operating in this intermediate stage, known as wholesalers, assemble goods purchased directly from manufacturers into complete product lines and distribute them to retailers. Formal vertical integration through 10 Werden (1987); Areeda and Hovenkamp (2008c); Lessig (2002); Wu (2004). The Regulation of Broadband Networks and the Internet mergers and de facto vertical integration through exclusivity arrangements between manufacturers and retailers or between manufacturers and wholesalers are common economic features, appearing in industr