 2000, the Bells signaled that they were Tough Calls prepared to agree to a more radical approach if they could be kept whole for some reasonable period. The basic idea was to shift most of the per-minute charges that were buried in long-distance rates to a monthly fee that already appeared on local phone bills. Again, the heavy lifting was done by a coalition, the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Service (CALLS), which included most of the major local and long-distance companies. Cynics might call it a shell game, but the FCC found it attractive because the long- distance companies agreed to lower their prices as their access costs came down, SO that most consumers would see lower monthly phone bills. At the last minute, however, the FCC got concerned that the deal might look like too big a win for the long-distance companies, SO it insisted that AT&T roll back a $3 minimum charge that it had imposed earlier in the year. The company agreed, but pointed out that it would also have to make a series of pricing adjustments to stay whole. The FCC said it didn't care what the company did with prices as long as the $3 minimum charge was eliminated. AT&T's "marketeers" wanted to issue a press release announcing the elimination of the minimum charge. Its regulatory attorneys wanted to stroke the FCC's collective ego, applauding their "historic action" in dramatically lowering access charges. Neither wanted to call attention to the filings we made on the same day raising the per-minute charges for calls on what was known as our "basic calling plan," which was the rate paid by about 28 million people who didn't sign up for one of our discount plans. AT&T had issued a news release every time it raised or lowered prices ever since it had been the only telephone company in town. Its competitors, on the other hand, trumpeted their price cuts, but communicated increases in very small type on their bills, if at all. This naturally irked our marketing people, who disliked the negative press that price increases st