 than reliance on network management techniques, and vice versa. It would thus be short-sighted to tie network managers' hands by limiting their flexibility in their choice of network management solutions. The Regulation of Broadband Networks and the Internet Network neutrality can also restrict the network's functionality. 16 A close anal- ysis of the "end-to-end argument" (Saltzer et al. 1984) - generally regarded as one of the foundations of network neutrality17 - demonstrates this point. The end-to-end argument asserts that application-specific functionality should be confined to the hosts operating at the edge of the network and that the core of the network should be as simple and general as possible. The rationale underlying this argument is based on cost-benefit analysis. Increasing the functions performed in the core of the network can improve the functionality of the network, but only at the cost of reduced network performance. The problem is that all applications would have to bear the costs associated with the reduction in performance even if they gained no compensating benefits. This tradeoff can be avoided if the core of the network per- forms only those functions that benefit almost all applications and if higher-level, application-specific functions are confined to the servers operating at the network's edge. Although the end-to-end argument is frequently invoked in support of network neutrality, such claims are misplaced. The architects of the end-to-end argument candidly reject calls to elevate end-to-end into a regulatory mandate as "too sim- plistic." Correct application of the cost-benefit tradeoff lying at the heart of the end-to-end argument requires "subtlety of analysis" and can be "quite complex." Indeed, the architects of end-to-end acknowledge that circumstances exist under which application of end-to-end would do more harm than good. 18 Properly con- strued, end-to-end calls for implementation on a case-by-case basis rather as a blanket regulatory prohibition (Bhattacharjee et al. 1997