Internet. See National Sci- ence Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, "Complex Picture of Computer Use in Home Emerges," NSF 00-314 (March 31, 2000). 35. Mark A. Lemley and Lawrence Lessig, "The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era," Berkeley School of Law and Economics Working Papers 2 (Fall 2000): art. 8. 36. See, for example, Kevin Werbach, "A Layered Model for Internet Policy," Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 1, no. 1 (2002): 37-68. 37. For an excellent overview of the theory for calculating the impact of delay, see Jerry Hausman, "Valuing the Effect of Regulation on New Services in Telecommunications," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics (1997): 1-38. For an estimate of the potential losses from delaying broadband, see Robert Crandall and Charles L. Jackson, The $500 Billion Opportunity (www.criter/oneconomics.com/pubs/articles_crandall.php [2001]). 38. Ibid. Notes to Pages 126-135 39. Ibid. 40. Niraj Gupta, Jack B. Grubman, and Kara Swenson, "The Battle for the High-Speed Data Subscriber: Cable VS. DSL" (Salomon, Smith, Barney, August 20, 2001). 41. Some evidence on the effects of UNE-P regulation was provided in chapter 5. 42. As already mentioned, the FCC subsequently eliminated the possibility of regulat- ing incumbents' broadband services under Section 271 of the 1996 act. See fn. 22. 43. Figure 8-6 shows that DSL had reached a plateau of slightly less than 80 million "addressable locations." There are about 100 million telephone households in the United States and 20 million small businesses. 44. Its stock market price declined by about two-thirds between September 2003 and June 2004, undoubtedly in response to the court decision. 45. FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2003, table 5. 46. Debra J. Aron and David E. Burnstein, "Broadband Adoption in the United States: An Empirical Analysis," March 2003 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstrac