A&P: A Study in Price-Cost Behavior and Public Policy (Harvard University Press, 1959). 10. For an interesting discussion of many of these exercises in regulatory protection, see Roger G. Noll and Bruce M. Owen, eds., The Political Economy of Deregulation (Washing- ton: American Enterprise Institute, 1983). Notes to Pages 167-178 11. A complete tabulation of these Universal Service disbursements may be found in the FCC's Trends in Telephone Service, annual editions. 12. FCC, Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, annual editions. 13. This proposal surfaced in August 2004, and therefore its prospects are far from clear as this book goes to press. See, for example, Anna-Maria Kovacs and Kristin L. Burns, TELECOM NOTE: Intercarrier Compensation Proposal (Regulatory Source Associates LLC, August 14, 2004). 14. Verizon and Bell South have not supported the proposal, in part because they appar- ently fear that they cannot pass on the increased fixed monthly rates to their subscribers. 15. Robert W. Crandall and Leonard Waverman, Who Pays for Universal Service? When Telephone Subsidies Become Transparent (Brookings, 2000), chap. 6. 16. FCC, Proposed Fourth Quarter 2003 Universal Service Contribution Factor, CC Docket 96-45 (September 5, 2003). 17. Crandall and Waverman, Who Pays for Universal Service? p. 162; Jerry A. Hausman, "Taxation by Telecommunications Regulation," Tax Policy and the Economy 12 (1998): 29-48. 18. Robert Litan and Roger Noll, "The Uncertain Future of the Telecommunications Industry," paper presented at the Brookings Instution forum Turmoil in Telecom, Decem- ber 2, 2003. 19. The examples provided were drawn from telephony, motor vehicles, motion pic- tures, commercial television, and cable television. 20. See Bruce M. Owen and Gregory L. Rosston, "Local Broadband Access: Primum Non Nocere or Primum Processi?" (Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, July 2003). For the opposite view from a lawyer, see Lawrence Lessig, The Government's Role in Promoting the Future of Telecommunicatio