0, the Bell Tough Calls companies handled billing for 89 percent of AT&T's long-distance customers. The Bells limited the length of any message, even for price increases, and wanted the information months in advance. AT&T had always planned to send a letter about the price increases to affected customers, but it postponed the mailing until the FCC approved the CALLS plan SO that the plan could be included. Under those circumstances, I should have insisted that we issue a news release and even run ads on the pricing changes. It would have complicated our relationship with the FCC, which was looking for an unambiguous win. It would have taken some of the wind out of cheers for the elimination of the minimum charge. It would have been com- plicated and difficult to explain. But we had done it before. In fact, when we first imposed the now-infamous minimum charge on all our basic-rate customers, we had organized a full-court press to explain the rationale behind it. Before the announcement, we met individually with 53 consumer advocates and more than 325 representatives of groups such as the AARP, the Urban League, and the National Council of La Raza. We laid out the full rationale for the move, including financial data showing that the company served 79 percent of people who made less than $10 a month in long distance calls and that it cost between $2.76 and $5.28 just to keep their ac- counts open. Also, we created an enhanced Life Line program that would exempt low-income customers from the charge. We issued a straightforward news release two months before the charge went into effect: "AT&T Extends $3 Usage Minimum to Basic Rate Customers, Offers Low-Usage Callers Service Options." The Bell companies used the announcement as one more reason to push for freedom from the strictures of the Telecom Act, but everyone else-from the chairman of the FCC to the shrillest consumer advo- cates-was relatively restrained. While clearly not happy with the turn of events, Consumers Union issued a statement pointing out that AT&T