he FCC also prohib- ited common carriers from bundling CPE with telecommunications services (FCC 1980a). 17 The context surrounding these decisions was quite different from that sur- rounding the Internet. For example, telephone service in the 1950s and 1960s was 17 This order was affirmed on judicial review (Computer & Commc'ns Indus. Ass'n V. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Networks in Telecommunications provided over lines dedicated to individual residences and businesses. Placing a local telephone call thus did not place much pressure on transmission facilities shared with other users, and thus the impact that one person's usage had on the quality of service provided to other users was minimal. 18 Long-distance calling did place additional pressure on shared transmission facilities, but those effects were internalized through usage-sensitive prices. In addition, at the time these rules were promulgated, there were no viable alter- natives to the local telephone network. Because there was little point in promoting innovation and competition in transmission technologies, promoting innovation and competition in complementary services represented a sensible policy goal at that time. The FCC and the Supreme Court have both acknowledged that the underlying technological environment has changed in ways that have undercut the basis for previous policies. 19 As an initial matter, the Internet is subject to congestion in a way that was not true with respect to conventional telephone service. The impact of congestion on other users is further exacerbated by the fact that the devices end users attach to the network have an increasingly heterogeneous impact on demand. As a result, the attachment of devices used to run bandwidth-intensive applications to the network can adversely affect the quality of service enjoyed by other end users, and these devices arguably represent situations in which restrictions on attaching devices would be permissible under both Carterfone and Hush-a-Phone. Last, the emergence of alternati