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,

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

  • University of Michigan

Citation

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 février 2009, e-Competitions February 2009, Art. N° 44417

Visites 368

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues