a series of "connectivity principles" that would prohibit network operators from restricting end users' ability to access content, run applications, or attach devices, provided that the end users' activities did not harm the network, The Regulation of Last-Mile Broadband Networks enable theft of services, or exceed the bandwidth limitations of the particular ser- vice plan (High Tech Broadband Coalition 2002; Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators 2003). Professors Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig (2003) submitted a similar proposal. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell called upon the industry to vol- untarily embrace a series of "Internet freedoms" that would ensure end users' ability to access content, use applications, and attach personal devices, subject only to restrictions needed to manage networks, ensure quality experiences, prevent disruption of the network, and prevent theft of service, 20 although subsequent comments have made clear that Powell would not support turning his Internet freedoms into a regulatory mandate (B2Day 2006). Concerns about network neu- trality were heightened still further when a small local telephone company known as Madison River Communications blocked its DSL customers from using the ports needed to access Internet telephony (also known as voice over Internet protocol or VoIP) (FCC 2005b). Aside from this isolated incident, little evidence emerged that last-mile broadband providers were blocking or degrading end user access to any content. 21 Indeed, even network neutrality proponents concede that such reports remain "isolated."22 The FCC finally addressed these concerns shortly after Brand X sustained its conclusion that broadband technologies constitute information services that are governed by the agency's Title I ancillary jurisdiction. In its 2005 Wireline Broad- band Internet Access Services Order, the FCC declined to mandate nondiscriminatory access to content and applications providers, finding insufficient evidence to jus- tify imposing such a restriction. The FC