ach any device for a flat monthly fee. The latter approach ultimately proved more attractive to consumers, and end users became accustomed to a world in which they faced few restrictions either on the ways they could use their network connections or on the amount of bandwidth they consumed. This same debate has resurfaced as the Internet has begun to migrate from a narrowband to a broadband architecture. Once again, network owners have begun to experiment with more restrictive approaches. With respect to end users, some network owners have begun to offer bandwidth tiers to end users, in which the amount that customers pay varies with the amount of bandwidth with which they are provided. Others have placed restrictions on end users' latitude to run certain applications or attach certain devices. Still others have considered alternative pric- ing relationships with respect to content and applications providers, under which transmission speed would depend on the tier of service purchased. To date, the policy decision has been framed as a choice between universal interoperability, in which end users remain free to access content, run applications, and attach devices as they see fit, and a world of "walled gardens," in which the subscribers to any particular network will only be able to enjoy the benefits of a limited number of Internet-based services. Unfortunately, the current debate has framed the issues in too narrow a manner. The problem is that - as even network neutrality proponents concede - deviations from network neutrality may well be motivated by legitimate concerns about net- work management and that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to predict which Networks in Telecommunications architectural approach will eventually prevail. For example, as Lessig himself notes, the vast potential of the Internet was lost not only on incumbent network owners such as AT&T, but also on almost every computer science expert presented with the concept of the World Wide Web (Lessig 2002). The difficulty of predicting t