AT&T Wins Linkline Antitrust Suit

said by Mchart:

The fact of the matter is that AT&T used government/local funding to build up much of it's current network.

said by Indymike:

AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network.

said by Indymike:

They were also allowed to charge the "Universal Service Fee" from EVERYONE so that they would service rural areas instead of just urban areas.

said by Indymike:

Maybe you might want to do a little research on the history of the telephone systems PRIOR to AT&T becoming a monopoly provider and then being broke up.

said by Indymike:

AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network.

They were also allowed to charge the "Universal Service Fee" from EVERYONE so that they would service rural areas instead of just urban areas.

Maybe you might want to do a little research on the history of the telephone systems PRIOR to AT&T becoming a monopoly provider and then being broke up.

said by Indymike:

AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network.

said by NormanS:

Money not paid isn't the same as money handed out.

said by james:

Uh, you need to go back to 3rd grade math if you honestly believe that to be true.
The negative number in an equation never disappears, it has to be negated by the addition of a positive number.

Also, you keep saying no tax money went to them, but that's just wrong. The rest of us taxpayers end up having to pay more because they're not paying. Look at eating in an eatery with some friends, supposing everyone pays for the bill equally. One day everyone agrees you're a cool guy and you dont need to pay for your share of the bill, the rest of them are subsidizing your share of the bill.

It's the same net effect as if you paid your share of the bill and then they gave you cash afterwards.

said by Mchart:

While I somewhat agree with that statement, I also don't really agree to the point that i'm satisfied. The fact of the matter is that AT&T used government/local funding to build up much of it's current network.

said by longstreet:

Qwest has a telephone network here in SLC, but you can get DSL from another provider over their line.

AT&T is a little bit different because they can still lord over their exclusive network (which they went bankrupt laying out in the 80's)

said by longstreet:

Allow me to elaborate.

The telephone lines in my area are stewarded by Qwest, but you can get any ISP service for DSL over them. Doesn't have to be Qwest.

The telephone lines are actually the property of the tax payers . .Qwest is just a steward.

AT&T spent a ton of money in the 80's laying cable. This is what I meant by them going bankrupt.

They had to sell parts of the business off (like to SBC . . . other cable companies) to keep out of the red.

AFAIK, you can only get 1 cable ISP here, which is Comcast. I've tried for years, unsuccessfully, to find another provider via cable.

I can't call up SBC or AT&T and say give me cable, but I can call up Verizon or Xmission and say give me DSL.

said by pnh102:

Instead of these ISPs paying their competitor more than what they would charge their own customers for service, they should have gone and built their own network.

said by longstreet:

They can price the product however they like. The market determines how much consumers are willing to bear that price.

said by BF69:

the lesson learned is the republican controled Supreme Court once again is in the pockets of corporate America.

said by footballdude:

Unanimous decision. Take your partisan blinders off.

said by BF69:

I'm a registered independant that used to be a resitered republican yet I am somehow partisan.

said by pnh102:

they should have gone and built their own network.

said by KrK:

Explain just how they would do that, exactly, since they have none of the benefits AT&T has had in order to build there network for a hundred years.

The plaintiffs in the case have "tried to join a wholesale claim that cannot succeed, with a retail claim that cannot succeed, and alchemize them into a new form of antitrust liability never before recognized by this court," Roberts said.

“If both the wholesale price and the retail price are independently lawful, there is no basis for imposing antitrust liability simply because a vertically integrated firm’s wholesale price happens to be greater than or equal to its retail price,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

"We decline the invitation to recognize such claims. Two wrong claims do not make one that is right," he wrote.

The court left open the possibility that the companies suing the AT&T unit could refashion their complaint using a different legal theory, known as predatory pricing, although a majority of justices suggested skepticism.

The ruling was the latest in a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that have generally made it harder to bring antitrust lawsuits.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

This wasn't very surprising. The 9th Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco leans way left and is often overruled by the Supreme Court. Even the left wing Supreme Court justices sided with AT&T on this one since the decision was unanimous. The 9th Circuit Court obviously decided to CREATE new law in this case and was slapped down by the Supremes.

»tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090225/···ntitrust

said by kamm:

It's simply a Bush-appointed, crooked head of SC speaking here...

... - these are the leftover minefield by the former Retard-in-Chief Dubya that 'bama has to navigate through in the comng years.

One can only hope that as more judges will retire O gets his shot to rebalance the bench ASAP (it's already way too bad that it's nothing but a joke with its unremovable judges.)

said by exocet_cm:

...today AT&T decided to give all supreme court justices free Internet access for life. (/sarcasm)