CASE COMMENTS: UNILATERAL PRACTICES - RELEVANT MARKET – EXCLUSIONARY ABUSE – MARGIN SQUEEZE

Peering agreements: The Paris Court of Appeals confirms that the national competition authority did not have to consider that a refusal to increase capacity in the context of a peering agreement between internet operators raised competition concerns (Cogent)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cogent is an American operator specialising in Internet transit. It offers its customers, who are internet service providers, access to the global network. Cogent's business involves entering into agreements with other operators to transit data over their networks. Between the major operators, these agreements are often barter agreements: each operator undertakes to route data traffic from the other's network over its own network. The services are considered mutually equivalent and no payment is required. Such agreements are in the interest of both parties as long as the traffic is balanced overall. This condition was no longer met in the agreement between

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

  • Catholic University of Louvain

Quotation

Anne-Lise Sibony, Peering agreements: The Paris Court of Appeals confirms that the national competition authority did not have to consider that a refusal to increase capacity in the context of a peering agreement between internet operators raised competition concerns (Cogent), 19 December 2013, Concurrences N° 2-2014, Art. N° 65680, pp. 88-89

Visites 148

All reviews