 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Just shows the SC can be unanimously wrong Pretty often. As we know, this would be on a point of law, because that's what appeals are anyway, and not the merits of the case, because it's simply self-obvious that AT&T engaged in price squeezing efforts designed to drive smaller ISPs out of the DSL business.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 miclVisit Lovely Downtown Port StarboardPremium
join:2001-10-25
Silver Spring, MD | Ding ding ding ding. CORRECT.
From the Bloomberg article:
"...In rejecting the lower court’s reasoning, Roberts invoked a 2004 Supreme Court decision that shielded AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. from some lawsuits by would-be telephone-service competitors. That ruling said phone companies can’t be sued under the antitrust laws for not complying with a 1996 federal law requiring they give competitors access to local networks. " |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
2 edits | Right. In other words "Yes, you got screwed, but there's nadda you can do about it because of THIS: (Insert Telco Lobbyist created law here)
Hey? Where's a law saying we can't be sued under copyright law for failing to comply with copyright law  |
|
| The funny thing is, when other providers years ago were charging 50+ bucks for DSL, and ATT "squeezed" them by introducing 19.99/29.99 dsl pricepoints, ATT is suddenly thijnking "hmm maybe lowering the price wasn't such a good idea. " Let's introduce caps! yeah! |
|
|
|
