et- tlement's scheme. In a part of its subsequent MTS and WATS Market Structure decision [10], the FCC held that, in general, non-traffic-sensitive (NTS) costs should be covered by fixed fees. Thus the subsidy of local monthly service, a fixed cost, from tolls should be reduced, not increased. As it happened, the divestiture decree was announced before the FCC settled the matter of access charges, SO the FCC set their effective date to be the date of divestiture. This phase of the proceeding was instituted to determine, first, whether the existing methods of compensation for exchange plant used in interstate tele- phone service should be replaced by a tariffed access charge framework and, sec- ond, if so, what the structure of such tariffs should be. The entry of the MFJ has effectively mooted the first question [11]. It is worth noting that the same pro- ceeding created the "exemption" from access charges for "enhanced service pro- viders." Because dial-up data networks carried information across state lines, the FCC considered them to be within their jurisdiction, but they had been estab- lished using local numbers, with the expectation that they would be treated as local service. The FCC thus "exempted" them from access charges, and most networks and their users simply treated these modem pools as local business lines. In 1987, a rather different FCC, under Chairman Mark Fowler, opened a proceeding to remove that exemption and thereby charge originating switched access rates, at that point generally in the range of $3 to $5 per hour, for dial-up data access. This was derided as a "modem tax" and blocked in no small part due to the public uproar, which led all the way to Capitol Hill. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), at that point chairman of the relevant House subcommittee, held hearings on the subject and made it rather clear that Congress would not be happy if the plan went ahead. Thus the "ESP exemption" was preserved. This The Great Telecom Meltdown was critical to the development of public Internet service i