The US Supreme Court rejects antitrust liability for price-squeeze by integrated dominant firms in the telecommunication industry illustrating deep suspicion about the institutional players in the antitrust system (Pacific Bell / linkLine)

linkLine’s Institutional Suspicions In this essay, I review the Supreme Court’s most recent monopolization decision—Pacific Bell v. linkLine—with a focus on the suspicions between the various institutions that had a hand in the case. I. The linkLine Decision The linkLine decision continues the lengthy historical saga concerning the relationship between regulation and antitrust in the telecommunications industry. AT&T owns much of the fiber-optic infrastructure for local telephone services in California. In particular, it holds the keys to the “last mile”—the lines connecting residences and business to the telephone network. AT&T is bound to a mandatory interconnection obligation as a condition of the AT&T/BellSouth merger that created the modern AT&T. Specifically,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • University of Michigan

Quotation

Daniel Crane, The US Supreme Court rejects antitrust liability for price-squeeze by integrated dominant firms in the telecommunication industry illustrating deep suspicion about the institutional players in the antitrust system (Pacific Bell / linkLine), 25 February 2009, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 44417

Visites 301

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues