said by bigjimc :

Who was a plaintiff attorney? Mickey Mouse?
or
Was it that cut and dry? (But not unanimous)

said by GOLFnSUN :

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.

said by GOLFnSUN :

... These are the two leftist anti-corporate justices on the court who vote against corporate interests on every single vote...

said by GOLFnSUN :

...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.

said by RadioDoc :

As long as it applies to everyone, including cable and wireless, I see nothing wrong with that.

Of course, we both know the probability of that happening is -1.

said by RadioDoc :

Which does that address, the chicken or the egg? The infrastructure has to be there before there are subscribers.

I don't disagree something needs to be done, but nationalizing utilities rarely works.

said by RadioDoc :

If we are really serious about it we'd just give tax credits to those who own private networks, and shift it all over to some benevolent public-controlled overseer? Really?

Where has that ever really worked for anything? Maybe if you have central control and no private ownership there might be a chance you'd get close to the goal, but then what? Where does the money come from? Do you lease it all back to the original companies? How do you keep the government from fucking it up like they do everything else they control? We'll end up with another Amtrak.

The horse has been out of the barn so long it's died and its corpse been eaten by jackals. The time to do this was in 1981...I'm afraid there is no going back now.

said by RadioDoc :

How about negotiating with my neighbor for an access easement? Maybe a lease? Maybe something not quite so oppressive?

said by RadioDoc :

Actually, it shows the fallacy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which started this "competition" farce.

While the FCC often has its head up its ass, in this case Congress shoved it up there. You might also remember it as the first attempt by Congress to regulate "obscenity" on cable TV pay channels.

Anyone who has even a slight grasp of economics knows this would never work under any kind of "free market" arrangement. Either it's heavily subsidized or outright built by tax money.

said by supergirl :

Funny, Playboy took the FCC to court over that "obscenity" law and won. Since then, the Congress doesn't touch "erotic" entertainment. It shouldn't have in the first place ala the 1st Ammendment.

The Bells competing is as stupid as those CLECs offering phone service.

said by nasadude :



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.

said by GOLFnSUN :

I have to agree with you. I can't believe it but I have to agree. Why would the Bells build into homes that already lines?

But what stupifies me is that of all the unethical monopolisitic things that the telcos have done over the last 10 years, this is the case that made it to the Supreme Court? Here's the cases I can think of bringing them to court for:
1 Creating fake "astro turf campaigns" to influence public opinion.
2 Not building out the fiber networks they were paid to build.
3 Not opening their networks to competition as dictated in the telecom Act of 96.
4 Restoring a monopoly.
5 Failing to honor concessions such as lowering dsl rates in Texas to retail ISP's because their lawyers didn't approve of the language in the contract, when they were the ones who authored the contract.
6 Failing to honor the concession of the SBC/AT&T merger to offer naked dsl.
7 Failing to honor the concessions of the AT&T/Bellsouth merger to offer naked dsl (2 freekin yrs later!)
8 Underminding local municipalities who try and build out their own netwoks after the telcos failed to build what they already agreed (and were paid) to build.
9 Wiping out the ISP and CLEC indistries by suffocating competition (wholesale dsl is more expensive than retail dsl.)
10 Forcing bundled solutions on customers.
11 Excessive lobbying and inciting corruption (although this is not illegal in itself, when your passing out $1.39 BILLION I'd be willing to bet there's more than enough illegal activity.)»www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/to···ompanies
12 False advertising ($15 dsl does not exist without bundling and T1 rates have another 30% mark up over what your quoted when you order the service.)

Of all of those legitimate arguments, the one that makes it to the Supreme Court is that they were scratching each other's backs? Hell, if they would have given it another 2 years then AT&T, Verizon and Qwest might be merged by then and then the Supreme Court wouldn't have had to waste time on this. Then they can get back to important decisions like should Maurice Clarett be allowed to enter the NFL early and who get's Anna Nicole's ex husband's money.

said by GOLFnSUN :

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.