place the current architecture and become the network, in much the same way that the Internet began as an overlay on top of a voice network and is now in the process of displacing the voice network. Content delivery networks thus appear to be an important alternative solution to reducing network costs, managing congestion, and minimizing latency. The problem is that content delivery networks violate network neutrality. Not only does URL redirection violate the end-to-end argument by introducing intelligence into the core of the network (Clark et al. 2006; for a critique of the way the end-to-end argument has been applied to the network neutrality debate, see Yoo 2004b); the fact that content delivery networks are commercial entities means that their benefits are available only to those entities willing to pay for their services. In other words, MSNBC.com would suffer greater latency and congestion than CNN. com unless it was also willing to pay a content delivery network to assist in delivering its content. 22 To the extent that it would prohibit networks from charging content and appli- cations providers for higher levels of service, network neutrality would thus threaten to foreclose one of the most innovative solutions to the problems of congestion and delay. Indeed, preventing network owners from pricing bandwidth would fore- close them from employing the most widely used mechanism for allocating scarce resources in our society. In the process, prohibiting access tiering would have the unintended effect of favoring current industry players whose offerings are not par- ticularly bandwidth-intensive or time-sensitive, while impeding the development of new applications who would gladly pay for higher guaranteed throughput rates if given the chance. 23 7. The Potential Insufficiency of Capacity Expansion and Metered Pricing as Alternatives Despite acknowledging that deviations from network neutrality may be justified by the needs of network management, network neutrality proponents still argue against such restri