 Telephone and Telegraph Co., Civil Action 74-1698 (D.D.C. November 20, 1974). Notes to Pages 8-10 6. Modification of Final Judgment, United States V. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd. sub. nom., Maryland V. United States, 460 U.S. 1001, 103 S. Ct. 1240, 75 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1983). For a discussion of this case, see Steve Coll, The Deal of the Century: The Breakup of AT&T (Atheneum, 1986). For a discussion of the AT&T case in the context of Sherman Act enforcement, see Robert W. Crandall, "The Failure of Structural Remedies in Sherman Act Monopolization Cases," Oregon Law Review 80, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 109-98. 7. The information-services restriction was lifted after the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on this provision of the decree. U.S. V. Western Electric, et al., and Pacific Telesis Group et al., 900 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 283 (1990). 8. For an estimate of the cost of this process, see Paul H. Rubin and Hashem Dezh- bakhsh, "Costs of Delay and Rent-Seeking under the Modification of Final Judgment," Managerial and Decision Economics 16 (1995): 385-99. 9. Although Japan has required NTT to establish two separate local companies and a long-distance company within a single holding company, it has not broken NTT into truly independent companies. 10. See Richard W. Oliver and David T. Scheffman, "The Regulation of Vertical Rela- tionships in the U.S. Telecommunications Industry," Managerial and Decision Economics 16 (1995): 327-48. 11. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, et. seq.), sec. 253 (a), passed as S. 652, 104 Cong. 2 sess. 12. The FCC's 2003 regulatory decision on local competition, called the "Triennial Review Order," was announced on February 20, 2003, but the Final Order was not pub- lished until August 21, 2003. See FCC, Report and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competit