reater competition in all regions (including the Bell company's home region). And by the way, Ma Bell is dead. May she rest in peace. In other words, we had Expect the Dumbing Down of Reality no intention of trying to recreate the Bell monopoly that had been taken apart in 1984. Forcing local markets open should be a precondi- tion of any long-distance/local company merger-ours or anyone else's. We arranged to get our message out as broadly as we could because we knew that the media would concentrate on the sexier parts of the story. That included delivering a copy of the speech to more than 3,000 public officials, community leaders, and other influentials on the day it was given. We also submitted an op-ed, entitled "Ma Bell Is Dead," to the Wall Street Journal, reprising the same basic arguments used in the speech. Allen's speech was broadly reported. The Dow Jones news service, for example, quoted Allen as saying that mergers between long- distance companies and local Bell companies ought not to be "un- thinkable" if they "enhance competition." Reuters's story led with, "A potential merger of SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. would likely include a detailed plan to open SBC's local markets to competitors." Bear Stearns issued an investor note saying, "AT&T and SBC Communications have a better-than-average chance to overcome opposition to a potential combination." Lawyers at the Department of Justice's antitrust division congratulated our lobbyists for making a compelling case that "passed the red-face test." In other words, they thought our arguments were credible. Capitol Hill staffers said that Allen had said all the right things about competition, and they would take a wait-and-see attitude on any merger. That was not the way FCC Chairman Reed Hundt saw it. Caught after a speech in New York City, he said he thought that most antitrust experts would find a merger between AT&T and any of the regional Bell companies "unthinkable." Then, to make sure everyone got the point, he scheduled a speech at the Bro