erns also underlay the landmark judicial and regulatory decisions in Hush-a-Phone and Carterfone that eventually forced AT&T to abandon its "foreign attachments" policy, which restricted end users' ability to attach non- Bell CPE to the network.' 6 Concerns about vertical exclusion of CPE also played an important role in the federal antitrust suit that eventually led to the breakup of AT&T in 1984 as well as in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.7 Apprehensions about vertical exclusion also played a key role in shaping federal policy with respect to long distance. Under the usual arrangement, long distance See AT&T (1914); United States V. AT&T (D. Or. 1914) (decree), reprinted in Shale (1918). This is in contrast to "telecommunications equipment," which refers to the wires and switches located outside end user locations that connect those premises together. United States V. W. Elec. Co. 1956 Trade Cas. [CCH] 62,246 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 1956). See Hush-A-Phone Corp. V. United States, 238 F.2d 266 (D.C. Cir. 1956); FCC (1968). On the breakup of AT&T, see United States V. AT&T (Modification of Final Judgment), 552 F. Supp. 131, 190 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland V. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). On the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 47 U.S.C. §S 272(a)(2)(A), 273. Networks in Telecommunications companies do not connect directly to subscribers. Instead, long distance companies simply interconnect to the local telephone network at a point located in the local telephone company's central office switch and rely on the local telephone company to provide the final connection needed both to initiate and to terminate long- distance calls. When AT&T had a monopoly over local telephone service, this placed local telephone companies in a key strategic position, which in turn gave rise to the concern that AT&T was using its control over local telephone networks to protect its long distance service from competition. It was in order to preserve the nascent competition in long distance that the D.C. Circuit ordered