bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | WOW 7-2
Who was a plaintiff attorney? Mickey Mouse?
or
Was it that cut and dry? (But not unanimous)
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Bartles & Jaymes. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | But..
but your honor, look at the phone records!!!
(get it?)  |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| This should come as *no* surprise whatSOever
The decision by the big business-friendly Supremes, was, as usual, bullshit. The whole reason why there was an antitrust case in the first place was because the Death Star (AT&T) is slowly reassembling itself. In short, if there is to be any kind of competition, then whoever owns the local lines has to allow other companies to use the same lines, even if they're competing for local service. But the aftermath of the Telecom Act produced a pattern of company consolidation, rather than an influx of new businesses. In 2000, Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon. Five years later, Verizon bought MCI. That same year, SBC acquired AT&T.
The class action lawsuit filed against big telcos like Qwest Communications, Verizon and SBC, claims the companies conspired to exclude competitors and not to compete against one another in their respective geographic markets for local telephone and high speed Internet services.
The Supremes simply sided with their corporate buddies, but then again, this is the same court that decided in Kelo that it's A-OK to eminent domain its way to possessing your home/land if a big moneybucks developing company wants the land.
--
The Toll
|
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Are you guessing or are you familiar with the case? |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by ColorBASIC  :Are you guessing or are you familiar with the case? If you read the article and found the actual case you wouldn't be asking that question.
--
The Toll
|
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :In 2000, Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon. GTE was never a component of the shattered AT&T behemoth...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by ColorBASIC :Are you guessing or are you familiar with the case? If you read the article and found the actual case you wouldn't be asking that question. I read the article, but not the actual case yet. But this from the article is rather telling:
The lawsuit contended the likely explanation was an illegal agreement...
In reversing that ruling, the Supreme Court majority said that ``an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice.''
You mean to tell me they have no proof but expect to win a lawsuit because it is "the likely explanation"? Heaven help us all if that ever becomes all the burden of proof needed to win at court. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to bigjimc
Re: WOW 7-2
said by bigjimc :Who was a plaintiff attorney? Mickey Mouse? or Was it that cut and dry? (But not unanimous) It was that cut and dry. The only justices dissenting were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. These are the two leftist anti-corporate justices on the court who vote against corporate interests on every single vote.
Basically, the plaintiffs said that because the Baby Bells didn't go in to competitors neighborhoods and lay parallel wiring to each home that that was proof of collusion. The claim was ridiculous on its face. Doing that would never return a profit. No wonder the Bells came to that conclusion independently. And that is how the court decided.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| reply to major marco
Re: This should come as *no* surprise whatSOever
I think if you were familiar with the particulars of case and the opinions of the judges you would have simply answered "Yes, I'm familiar with it" rather than answer the question with a question.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire |
|
Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Teleblend
·ViaTalk
| reply to ColorBASIC
Doesn't need to be familiar with the case, it's common sense. I think anything in this country can be related to starwars lol.
You got GW bush as senator palpatine, the Separatists = terrorists, and the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (singed may 9th by GW) is Palpatine gaining emergency powers. Isn't it interesting how Fox isn't covering NSPD 51? The biggest violation of the constitution yet, and nobody cares... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | When did they start providing net access at Club Gitmo?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI | reply to NormanS
Ironic how the largest entity in this game (ATT) also has chosen the most myopic expansion plan of 6Mbs VDSL. How surprising. |
|
BPLSUCKS
join:2006-04-26
Grand Ledge, MI | reply to major marco
Can't use eminent domain in my state except for utilities. The land cannot be resold to private developers for 100 years after the purchase. |
|
Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | reply to pnh102
So now defending the US constitution is anti-american?  |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Cogdis :So now defending the US constitution is anti-american? No, I am just asking when did the government give you, being an illegal combatant, internet access at your cell in Gitmo. Surely that's where you ended up because you disagreed with Bush, right?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: WOW 7-2
said by TKJunkMail :Basically, the plaintiffs said that because the Baby Bells didn't go in to competitors neighborhoods and lay parallel wiring to each home that that was proof of collusion. Lack of proof that a conspiracy exists is, in fact, PROOF that the conspiracy exists.
This is one of the first fundamental concepts that they teach on the first day of Conspiracy 101.
--
A is A |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| reply to BPLSUCKS
Re: This should come as *no* surprise whatSOever
Well you have not being following the Supreme Court lately.
“The Supreme Court ruled yesterday (may/2005) that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.”
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html
so if your neighbourhood sucks your major can find a developer to revitalize the area even if that means you must go! |
|
Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT | reply to BPLSUCKS
Michigan also has term limits on legislators Which is why Michigan is moving forward. Unlike the Dinosaurs at the Supreme Court. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: WOW 7-2
said by TKJunkMail :... These are the two leftist anti-corporate justices on the court who vote against corporate interests on every single vote... you mean the pro-consumer justices?
said by TKJunkMail :...Basically, the plaintiffs said that because the Baby Bells didn't go in to competitors neighborhoods and lay parallel wiring to each home that that was proof of collusion. The claim was ridiculous on its face. Doing that would never return a profit. No wonder the Bells came to that conclusion independently. And that is how the court decided. Wow. So laying parallel wiring to each home "would never return a profit"? Is that why the ILECs want any competitors to do that and not have to share the existing lines? So the FCC pushing "facilities based competition" is really just a sham, because it "would never return a profit" for competitors?
You didn't think very hard before you wrote that did you? Because that one statement completely shows the fallacy of the current FCC policy of pushing facilities based competition and allowing the ILECs to get away with not sharing their lines. |
|
