for American telecommunications consumers .... ” Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-104, 110 State. 56 (1996). Moreover, IF the detariffing provisions of the Telecommunications Act subject the terms of nationwide long-distance form contracts to state law attack, the transactional costs and litigation expenses would also increase. Carriers would then face the continuous cost of court challenges and the added expense of revising and distributing modified CSAs which conform with new state court rulings. Consumers would bear the brunt of this through higher prices for telephone service. This too is at odds with Congress’s intent. It also belies the FCC’s belief that the transactional costs of detariffmg would be fixed and short-lived. See, 11 FCC Red. at 20,736 (¶ 57) (<HOLDING>). 8 . On the other hand, if the resulting
holding that the costs of computerized research should be characterized not as taxable costs but as attorneys fees recognizing that detariffmg would result in some increased administrative costs but anticipating those costs to be initial and fixed costs only resulting from the shift to a detariffed environment  such as the cost of developing short standard contracts holding that costs are not fixed until judgment is entered and interest can only run on costs when due holding that policy holders lacked standing under rico to sue tobacco companies for increased costs of insurance passed on to them as a result of the increased costs of treating smokingrelated illnesses holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla