to collect those rates. While the result we reach is mandated by the filed rate doctrine, that doctrine is plainly a creature of a different time. The Supreme Court has recognized that “although the filing requirement prevented price discrimination and unfair practices” when AT&T held a monopoly in long-distance telecommunications, strict application of the filed rate doctrine “frustrates those same goals” in today’s era of deregulation and multiple competing carriers. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. 512 U.S. 218, 233, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 2232-33, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994). The FCC itself has tried unsuccessfully to regulate the doctrine out of existence by excusing carriers other than AT&T from the FCA’s filing requirements. See id. at 220-21, 234, 114 S.Ct. at 2226-27, 2233 (<HOLDING>). In practice, as this case illustrates, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the childrens court exceeded its authority in prohibiting the human services department from placing a child with her brother (B) holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute (C) holding that presentment is a requirement of the fca (D) holding that the fca includes a materiality requirement (E) holding that the fca exceeded its authority in exempting nondominant carriers from filing requirement
(E)