imulated. Both MCI and Sprint had raised their basic rates in recent weeks without issuing a news release-and with nary a peep from the FCC or anyone else. Why should AT&T be held to a higher standard? When all the puts and takes were computed, the average customer's bill would in fact go down. So when I challenged the head of Consumer Services on his plan to avoid mentioning the price increases in any of our news releases, I knew what direction the argument would take. "Look," he said, "we're going to send a letter to everyone on our basic calling plan to tell them about the price increases and to offer them alternatives. Why should we issue a news release on top of that when none of our competitors Don't Confuse Politics and Public Relations do?" Against my better judgment, I settled for an oblique reference to the price increases in the news release. It would congratulate the FCC and announce the elimination of the minimum charge as part of a "restructuring" of basic rates. News coverage the day after the announcement was highly favor- able, especially for the FCC's chairman, who was cast in the role of the crusader who forced the big long-distance companies to pass their cost savings along to consumers. Most stories highlighted the elimina- tion of AT&T's minimum fee. Consumers Union-seldom effusive in its praise of the industry-called the deal "definitely a step forward offering consumers a potential for lower prices regardless of how much calling they do."4 But within a week, the New York Times ran a front-page story accusing the company-and the FCC, which admitted that it knew about the price increases-of misleading the public. "AT&T Move Means Millions Will Face Higher Phone Bill," the head- line read. Consumers Union, which by now had read the fine print, was furi- ous, saying, "What was done by AT&T and the FCC was misleading and deceptive." By mid-afternoon, we had taken more than IOO media calls and done interviews on the CBS Evening News, CNN, and National Public Radio, among others. While the FCC st